Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined


About rongo

  • Birthday 07/19/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,849 profile views

rongo's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. There are reasons for it, but I think both the letter and the spirit of the Proclamation explain this. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. I know that several in this thread have said that mothers working can still nurture, but the reality is that the nurturing and the "mom time" is not the same when children are with others more than with her. And, mom gets home tired and spent --- what kids get from mom is completely different when being mother is her sole focus vs. a section of the pie chart. There are spiritual intangibles for the mere presence of mom at home with the kids. President Kimball told of staying with a family during a stake conference, and he typed at the kitchen table all day while the children kept coming in and calling for mom. She answered them and they went on about their business; they never needed anything specific from her, they just needed to know she was there and reassure themselves. I think there are real spiritual and emotional/psychological benefits and advantages to mothers being home with their developing children, where possible. It is not at all the same level of nurturing if they are in day care or with babysitters (even extended family), or raised by father at home, in my opinion. I agree with @Fether that the exception has become the rule in the Church, and I think we're seeing the fruits of this among Millennials, GenZ, and GenAlpha. And it's just snowballing more.
  2. It is all relative. After the initial bump after a dedication, attendance usually goes way down for most temples (intermountain west may have some exceptions to this, but it holds true for almost all others). We were told when the Gilbert temple was built that often those closest to temples who have to expend the least effort to go attend the least over time. I know that Snowflake provided a disproportionate number of temple workers in Mesa for decades, which was directly why they got their own (in the "reward temple" days). That is quite a distance from Mesa. I think there are psychological analogues to this: when there is a high cost, things are appreciated more. I think that we see (or are starting to see) that when you "take the temple to the people" and put small ones everywhere, intensity drops. Seemingly counterintuitve: making it "easier" to attend the temple can have the effect of lessening commitment and interest.
  3. Many have hated it as well. We currently have a sister in our ward originally called to Japan, but now in her 13th month (unlikely to go to her mission). She really didn't like the Zoom companionship study, Zoom lessons, and everything else with the home MTC experience.
  4. He said: "You may be wondering when you will be able to return to the temple. Answer: Your temple will be open when local government regulations allow it. When the incidence of COVID-19 in your area is within safe limits, your temple will be reopened." He didn't define what "safe limits" is, but because he tied it to "local government regulations," it's reasonable to think that what "local government regulations" determine are "safe limits" would be the determinant. He's the one who chose to say "local government regulations." That isn't at all what he said, though. Had he said this, I wouldn't be frustrated, because it would have entailed entirely different expectations and reactions than "local government regulations." And which social distancing standard, the 6 ft. one or the 3 ft. one (CDC has been all over the map with this and everything else)? What vaccination level = herd immunity? We're nowhere near settling that number than we were before, but churches aren't restricted any more. If the Church wants to have a more stringent standard, fine, but then tell us that we are using a more stringent standard and don't play the psychological trick of using "local government regulations" to explain why temples are severely limited, indefinitely. No, it really doesn't, especially since they are many years from completion, some decades (if ever). We'll have 30 new temples announced next conference, and people will ooh and ahh, but as has been said, announcing is one thing, building is another. And lifting restrictions yet another.
  5. Partial vicarious work = very limited temple baptisms (by appointment). My temple (Gilbert) you can supposedly make an appointment and go do baptisms, but pre-Covid we've waited three hours to be allowed to do three family names (lots of youth). You can imagine what the queue is like even trying to schedule a handful of youth to do a handful of baptisms. My wife is in the YW presidency, and they really want to get their new ones (the 11 year olds) and those who entered the program but have never been able to go due to Covid. Saying that this is an option is different from the reality when the rubber hits the road. Most of these are more limited than what is represented. And, with almost all local regulations allowing for full temples at full capacity --- and with Covid numbers, vaccinations, etc. --- the longer the temples stay inoperable for all intents and purposes (for proxy work), the weirder this is. Especially when President Nelson told us our temples would open when local regulations allow it.
  6. I agree (cf. my first post in this thread). My son returns from Norway in June, and many Norwegians also agree that the temple will sit empty. But so did Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Helsinki. I still think much of this is marketing/branding, regardless of how unused they are. Yep. I think this is the case with almost all new temples.
  7. He did not tell the truth about local regulations being the hold-up to temple work resuming. Almost no places have capacity or other limits on church services. The minute he said that, we all looked at each other, and said, "They could all be open tomorrow" (or Tuesday, since the temples aren't open on Mondays ), but it becomes increasingly obvious with the passing months as one monitors the "phases" that temples aren't even close to opening up to normal volume and capacity. And, this is increasingly not reflective of the Covid situation, either, and will be more so with each passing week/month. Lip service is paid to urgency, but nothing says "urgency" about the Church's actions with the temple. Unfortunately.
  8. When? Despite saying in conference that they will open when local regulations allow, none are back to pre-Covid capacity and volume. Only a handful in the world are even open for partial vicarious work. If it really were local regulations, temples would be open and operating right now. Despite saying this, it isn't local regulations holding them back, it is internal Church regulations. Which is belied by the complete lack of urgency over the last year and a half and counting. We're told how crucial this work is, but the Church's actions on their face say the opposite. This is certainly a part of it, but many of them are announced in places where they aren't going to be staffed or patronized, other than by missionaries. I think it's two-fold: 1) President Nelson likes the idea of building them all over the place. 2) Branding and marketing. The idea is that if they're all over the place, it will make the Church more visible and seem more established. How many have been announced that are somewhere between announcement and being dedicated? Isn't it at least 60? And with the construction supply shortages, it's going to take even longer than it normally would.
  9. This is very astute. I think what the Church does (and does not do) in the manuals is a good way to view the current correlation setting, no matter what other messages are percolating. For example (and to the chagrin of some), the Book of Mormon manual infamously contained a brief statement about dark skin as a curse in its 2 Nephi 5 section. After the blogosphere went nuts, the Church changed the online version, but did not issue a recall and reprint of the print version. This was not nearly good enough for those whom it bothered, but there it stood --- probably the best needle-threading that could be done between two polarized camps. As you point out, the needle-threading with evolution and the flood takes place in the coming OT manual. There has to be some balancing that doesn't 100% satisfy polarized camps. There are other signs of this, too --- other data points. For all of the "no position" and needle-threading statements, the (heavily pro-global flood) Parry article in the Ensign remains the only Church magazine treatment. As you point out, the CES manuals tend to be more conservative than gospel doctrine ones in the same way that BYU-I is more traditional and conservative than BYU-P. President Nelson has also written and said things that anger evolutionists. I'm not sure how the needle could be better threaded, either. You raise an interesting question about opportunity cost calculus. Would it be better to: a) go whole hog for the "enlightened" modern view --- embrace evolution, higher criticism, etc. or b) continue to cater more to the traditional/conservative view? What would be the opportunity cost of both a) and b)? How low are the drawbacks for each, and how high are the potential gains? With either one, the "losing" side has to come to terms with and deal with the "loss" --- mostly continuing in their view while acknowledging that the "other view" has the unwritten or quasi-official upper hand. It's probably best the way it is and has been done.
  10. Found it. The online handbook is still awful to try to find anything in. 12.3.5 "Youth should not teach in Primary, including as substitutes." It was part of the March 2020 omnibus handbook overhaul (updates are ongoing and online, but this was a big dump of changes at once. That's why it stuck out).
  11. I remember this being among handbook changes, but I detest trying to find things in the online ones. I'll see what I can find.
  12. I've never cared for the "act as though the calling is being extended by Jesus Himself" approach. We always (where possible) extended it with both spouses present, and before formally extending the calling, we told them that we would like to extend this calling to them. Are there any questions or concerns? Where there were concerns (or obvious upset about it), we talked about it. People have it drummed into them that you don't reject callings, but we made it clear that it was okay for us to "pull out of the dive" if we needed to. Above all, we didn't want anyone to leave the office with it being a bad experience for them (either because of guilt, or accepting a calling with reservations, etc.). We emphasized that we discuss them for a reason, and there's nothing wrong with discussing relevant information (we may not be aware of) and altering things if needed. We **really** wanted their input and feelings, and we really took that into account. A member of the Seventy told me that he never had anyone turn down a calling he issued --- not once in his life ---, but he laid it on really thick that rejecting the calling is no different from rejecting it from Jesus Himself. I really don't see it that way, and my reality was actually not that different in terms of acceptance rate (not 100%, but most callings were cheerfully accepted). Now, turning down speaking invitations? If someone had really bad anxiety, I would diffuse the situation and make a goal to take a rain check. Almost all in this boat were willing to make a goal and work towards it, and most did end up speaking (with the momentary anxiety bomb diffused, but knowing that we would ask again at a later time, so try to build up towards it). It's amazing how many adults tell you they haven't given a talk for decades. ETA: I did have a prospective RS president literally fall out of the chair when extended (she collapsed from shock, like a bomb went off). I had had a very strong series of impressions (stronger than that, but it's hard to explain) that we had talked about for about a month before going with it. She was really young (25-ish), pretty liberal (which was really not my default setting), and had just returned from a couple of years of inactivity, but it was unmistakable. After her complete shock, she did a fantastic job. I would totally have understood her wanting time to think and pray about it, but she did accept it at that time.
  13. The Church has changed this to forbid the practice, but we used to have the youth fully take primary (including nursery) on 5th Sundays. It was heavily organized, with prepared lessons and divided labor. We had 60-70 youth, so the hard part was what to do with the surplus youth. We would have ca. 4 youth per class, much more than that in nursery, and then a whole lot in sharing time (with strategically-selected youth doing the singing time, the lesson, and the activity). We prepared about a month in advance, and it worked out really well, but the Church is risk-averse with youth supervising, apparently. I'm glad we were able to do it every 5th Sunday, though --- the "Primary prisoners" seemed to enjoy the break a few times a year.
  14. It's pretty fun --- especially if you can do it with your spouse. Plus, it's only 50 minutes now, not 2 hours.
  • Create New...