How Can Church Be More Fun??????

[Somebodyz]

Somebodyz, on 27 June 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

Please can you state were we are taught the people are perfect and programs are perfect ?

When was the last time you heard the Church take responsibility for anything negative?

http://www.telegraph...st-victims.html

Pres Eyring's statement:

http://en.wikipedia....ublic_relations

I'm not one of those that believe in one generation having to apologise for another, to the current generation. It seems the current generation are all about blame and victimhood. Too often calling for an apology were non is owed. (I'm not refering to the links above in this statement)

More and more it seems to me we use the word "The Church" to indicate something removed from people or buildings or anything physical; it has become a Platonic immaterial ideal of sorts. Hence, when we say "the Church is true," we are talking about something that exists not in the real world but only in the mind

..and in the same way, demand an apology, using the same mind set as you'd stated. When in fact it's usually individuals who have offended or been percieved to offend.

.

In this way, "the Church" in any (and every) temporal sense may be filled with imperfections, and yet we are justified in continuing the trope of saying it is nonetheless "true."

But since we insist on "the Church" being "true," it must follow that any deficiencies in it experienced by the members must be the fault of the person experiencing the deficiency.

Who's insisting? The church is made of individuals, and I'm sure they don't all feel this way. As a convert, my testimony was of the Gospel being true, yet I still struggled with Joseph Smith, but knew that would change in time, and fall into place, if I had faith, in the testimony I'd already received. (It was like stepping off a cliff)

When an individual does state the Church is true, its more a use of language, and may mean something different to each individual, if probed further. More of a bad habit, picked up at church, IMO.

We have seen examples of this mindset already in this thread.

It still does not mean the Church or it's people have claimed perfection.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Somebodyz

[John Ping Pong]

It still does not mean the Church or it's people have claimed perfection.

I am becoming more and more convinced that "the Church" does not really exist in time and space. So when you say "the Church" does not claim perfection, I don't even know what that means. What would have to happen for "the Church" to claim anything, I wonder?

And I am aware that the people of the Church do not claim perfection, but they do seem to frequently claim perfection for the Church to which they belong, which is something apparently different from "the people" who compose it.

The fact that, according to some, the Church can do no wrong, is simply a manifestation of that mindset, in my opinion.

Let's take a non-controversial instance--in the 1980's, the Church reduced a full-time mission for elders from 2-years to 18-months, with the goal of increasing the number of young men who would volunteer to serve missions. When the increase in missionaries failed to materialize, the Church in short order increased the time period back to 2-years.

Is it possible to characterize this as a "mistake" without shaking anyone's testimony?

I have run across a number of LDS who refuse to believe that this could have been a mistake, that it must have been directed by God, and adduce all manner of conjectures in order to buttress their opinion.

What are your thoughts regarding this quick 1-2 in mission policy?

Are you able to characterize it as a mistake?

Edited June 29, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[selek1]

Let's take a non-controversial instance--in the 1980's, the Church reduced a full-time mission for elders from 2-years to 18-months, with the goal of increasing the number of young men who would volunteer to serve missions. When the increase in missionaries failed to materialize, the Church in short order increased the time period back to 2-years.

Is it possible to characterize this as a "mistake" without shaking anyone's testimony?

Why would we categorize it as a "mistake"?

A mistake is defined as:

mis·take (m-stk)

n.

1. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.

2. A misconception or misunderstanding.

v. mis·took (m-stk), mis·tak·en (m-stkn), mis·tak·ing, mis·takes

v.tr.

1. To understand wrongly; misinterpret: mistook my politeness for friendliness.

2. To recognize or identify incorrectly: He mistook her for her sister.

v.intr.

To make a mistake; err.

You have yet to demonstrate (in any way) that the 18-month mission experiment constituted an error or fault.

Since your example does not meet the definition, we are under no constraint to apply that definition?

You may insist that a felis domesticus is, in fact, "a dog" all you like- but until you can demonstrate that it is, in fact, a dog, we are under no obligation to play along.

I have run across a number of LDS who refuse to believe that this could have been a mistake, that it must have been directed by God, and adduce all manner of conjectures in order to buttress their opinion.

The speculation about the motives of others is irrelevant (and misleading).

The action might constitute "a mistake"- but you provide no proof for the allegation.

Unless and until you show that the eighteen monthh mission policy was, in fact, an error or fault, we have no reason to accept your characterization.

That's not ideological blindness, it's intellectual integrity.

What are your thoughts regarding this quick 1-2 in mission policy?

I would categorize it as an experiment intended to increase missionary application (and hopefully, participation) rates.

Are you able to characterize it as a mistake?

Not until it meets the definition of one. Edited June 30, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

Maybe we should just be able to have an online internet sunday church service...for those who would be more comfortable doing it that way.

Actually, that kind of makes sense to me.

[The Nehor]

Maybe we should just be able to have an online internet sunday church service...for those who would be more comfortable doing it that way.

The church is generally opposed to the process of social retardation.

[cwald]

Double post.

Edited June 30, 2012 by cwald

[cwald]

The church is generally opposed to the process of social retardation.

And yet, look at what you are doing tonight.

[The Nehor]

And yet, look at what you are doing tonight.

Unwinding after a long day of meetings, training sessions, a business lunch, a family dinner, and going swimming with some friends by posting mostly inane comments on the internet.

[cwald]

So why could we not do that on Sunday...after an exhausting week at work?

[The Nehor]

So why could we not do that on Sunday...after an exhausting week at work?

Because we need the fellowship of the saints in person. Technology is great but it doesn't replace human contact and proximity. These are people we need to reach out to and bless, interact with, smile with, laugh with, and all the rest. Other forms of communication can't replace that and human interaction is diminished when there is a physical distance involved. I feel sorry for anyone who prefers an e-hug to a real hugh. In the same I hope there will hopefully also never be e-baptisms, e-ordinations, e-temple ordinances, e-sacrament, and e-home teaching.

I would suggest relaxing on Saturday. Sunday is a day of rest from temporal labors not a day of just plain rest. If it were just rest most Church leaders would be habitual Sabbath Breakers. The Holy Ghost is always telling me to visit and help people on the Sabbath and I don't think the Holy Ghost is pro-Sabbath breaking.

[cwald]

Okay.

[Calm]

Because we need the fellowship of the saints in person. Technology is great but it doesn't replace human contact and proximity. These are people we need to reach out to and bless, interact with, smile with, laugh with, and all the rest. Other forms of communication can't replace that and human interaction is diminished when there is a physical distance involved. I feel sorry for anyone who prefers an e-hug to a real hugh. In the same I hope there will hopefully also never be e-baptisms, e-ordinations, e-temple ordinances, e-sacrament, and e-home teaching.

I would suggest relaxing on Saturday. Sunday is a day of rest from temporal labors not a day of just plain rest. If it were just rest most Church leaders would be habitual Sabbath Breakers. The Holy Ghost is always telling me to visit and help people on the Sabbath and I don't think the Holy Ghost is pro-Sabbath breaking.

As someone who 'gets' to limit her physical contact with others, I totally endorse the above with my whole heart, mind and soul.

[John Ping Pong]

Why not engage what I said instead of indulging in unfounded ad hominem?

It was not an ad hominem, Selek1.

Just ask Mr. Schryver!

But seriously, to give you the benefit of the doubt, can you point out any decision by non-local LDS Church leadership that you would feel comfortable characterizing as a mistake?

If so, I would obviously exclude you from that group of Mormons who are constitutionally incapable of doing so.

[selek1]

It was not an ad hominem, Selek1.

Just ask Mr. Schryver!

Silly me- I thought you were interested in good faith discussion, rather than mere posturing.

But seriously, to give you the benefit of the doubt, can you point out any decision by non-local LDS Church leadership that you would feel comfortable characterizing as a mistake?

If so, I would obviously exclude you from that group of Mormons who are constitutionally incapable of doing so.

Setting aside the "have-you-stopped-beating-wour-wife" gotcha question, I've asked and answered this in both Post #128 above and in this post.

My intellectual integrity and honesty are not under question here. I have nothing to prove.

I did notice, however, that you failed to respond to the question I asked in Post #128..

Again- why would we agree with your contention that the 18-month mission policy was a mistake- when you have offered zero proof that it was one?

Edited June 30, 2012 by selek1

[John Ping Pong]

Again- why would we agree with your contention that the 18-month mission policy was a mistake- when you have offered zero proof that it was one?

It is a fact that for many years before the change, missions for young men were for two-years.

It is a fact that the Church changed the duration to 18-months, and then shortly thereafter reverted to two-years, where it has remained since.

I believe it is a fact that the purported reason for making missions 18-months was to increase the number of missionaries, and that the change to 18-months did not increase the number of missionaries, thus precipitating the change back to two-years.

These facts permit the reasonable conclusion that the change of mission duration to 18-months was a mistake.

Do you dispute the "facts" as I have outlined them, or the conclusion I draw?

[CASteinman]

These facts permit the reasonable conclusion that the change of mission duration to 18-months was a mistake.

Do you dispute the "facts" as I have outlined them, or the conclusion I draw?

They aren't all facts. You gave two facts and one belief. The "mistake" idea evolves not from facts but from your belief.

[selek1]

They aren't all facts. You gave two facts and one belief. The "mistake" idea evolves not from facts but from your belief.

More to the point, JPP provides zero evidence to support his belief.

What was the precise statement made by the Church?

Was the change made because "the change will cause greater missionary participation"?

--or--

Was the change made "in the hope that the change will spur greater missionary participation"?

There are profound distinctions between these two statements- distinctions and differences which JPP has consistently failed to address- but are critical to whether the Church leaders actually made an error.

[CASteinman]

More to the point, JPP provides zero evidence to support his belief.

What was the precise statement made by the Church?

Was the change made because "the change will cause greater missionary participation"?

--or--

Was the change made "in the hope that the change will spur greater missionary participation"?

There are profound distinctions between these two statements- distinctions and differences which JPP has consistently failed to address- but are critical to whether the Church leaders actually made an error.

As I read it, the actual justification was different than either of those above. It was related to economics and legal requirements in some nations.

I also point out that JPP says that the change was to increase the NUMBER of missionaries. Which is a contradiction. You cannot reasonably reduce the (already full) shelf space for the inventory of items and then expect there to be more items! In the same way you cannot cut the number of missionaries by 25% and expect there to be an increase in the number of missionaries. You MIGHT however, hope for an increase in inventory turnover -- which would be an increase in participation rate.

However, this was not the reason for the change. The reasons were stated as economic and legal.

Edited June 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[Skylla]

Stop the personal comments.

Skylla

[Heide]

As I read it, the actual justification was different than either of those above. It was related to economics and legal requirements in some nations.

I also point out that JPP says that the change was to increase the NUMBER of missionaries. Which is a contradiction. You cannot reasonably reduce the (already full) shelf space for the inventory of items and then expect there to be more items! In the same way you cannot cut the number of missionaries by 25% and expect there to be an increase in the number of missionaries. You MIGHT however, hope for an increase in inventory turnover -- which would be an increase in participation rate.

However, this was not the reason for the change. The reasons were stated as economic and legal.

I have not seen where an official explanation has been proffered for the Church's decision to adjust the term for a mission from 2 years to 18 months then back to 2 years. There very well may be an official explanation; I just have not seen it. Regardless, I doubt that there was simply one or two reasons for the change in policy. If it were just one or two reasons, then the change back from 1.5 years to 2 years would suggest that the reasons for the change in the first place had been largely resolved. I have not seen information to suggest that those conditions had been resolved. If those conditions were not resolved, then a second possibility is that the original conditions leading up the change and the reasons for reverting back to a 2 year mission may be unrelated. In other words, there is the possibility that the change to a 1.5 year terms revealed consequences that in balance outweighed the original problem that the change attempted to correct.

As to whether the change was a mistake is something entirely different. One could theorize that the changes in the term and the later correction demonstrated that there was a misunderstanding as to the complex relationships of the various factors involved in 2 year mission and how those factors would be affected by the change to a 1.5 year mission. Using the definition provided above, this could be defined as a mistake. However, this assumes that the brethren or other agents to whom the brethren delegated the responsibility of managing the missionary program intended to make the original change permanent. Since we do not know the thought process or intent, the brethren could have experimented with the change intending that it be relatively temporary in an effort to learn or determine what the resulting consequences would be, whether an improvement or not.

Inherent in this discussion involved some discussion on whether the Lord is intimately involved in every policy decision made by the brethren. As the term of a mission is less a matter of doctrine but one of policy, it begs the question whether the Lord allows the brethren to make their own decisions without direct revelation as to which choice would be the better choice to make. There is no prohibition that I am aware of that would suggest that the Lord could give the brethren inspiration as to the pros and cons of each decision in making policy but allow the ultimate decision to be based upon the brethren's best judgment.

[Heide]

Since I am incapable of figuring out how to edit my post, I should have concluded my post above in #145 by stating that if by Church we mean the Church led by the Lord and not the church as a legal entity, then the Church cannot err. Using my discussion above regarding whether the Lord allows the brethren to use personal judgment in carrying out policy, then any mistake (however defined) would technically be a mistake by the brethren and should not be assigned to the Church itself.

[CASteinman]

I have not seen where an official explanation has been proffered for the Church's decision to adjust the term for a mission from 2 years to 18 months then back to 2 years. There very well may be an official explanation; I just have not seen it. Regardless, I doubt that there was simply one or two reasons for the change in policy. If it were just one or two reasons, then the change back from 1.5 years to 2 years would suggest that the reasons for the change in the first place had been largely resolved.

I agree with your post. As added information I believe that at the time that they were turned back to 2 years, the problems -- at least the economic problems, had been largely resolved.

Here is the explanation from April 1982:

Much consideration has been given to the term of service for young men in the mission field. Costs of maintaining missionaries have risen dramatically. Many of our families face extremely heavy economic pressures. The problem is aggravated by the fact that more and more young men are being called from lands outside the United States and Canada, many of them from lands where rates of inflation have been extremely high and have taken a serious toll in the real incomes of people.

[in addition] regulations which preclude extended absence from school or apprenticeship programs; likewise, military requirements in some countries prohibit two-year absences to fill missions.

It is hoped that improved training will better qualify [the missionaries] to work more productively when they arrive in the field. It is likewise anticipated that this shortened term will make it possible for many to go who cannot go under present circumstances. This will extend the opportunity for missionary service to an enlarged body of our young men.

[Calm]

These facts permit the reasonable conclusion that the change of mission duration to 18-months was a mistake.

Do you dispute the "facts" as I have outlined them, or the conclusion I draw?

If people try something new to see what improvements may occur and no improvements occur so they change back to the original way of doing things, how is that a mistake? Would you prefer no one ever take risks and try anything new, just keep doing things the same old, same old?

Note to Heide: when you reach 25 posts, you will be able to edit as well as start new threads in this forum.

Edited July 1, 2012 by calmoriah