Ward Directory Changed

[Calm]

I thought of that. Problem is, it publicizes private information.

I didn't think it through.

[bluebell]

That's all anyone can do where ambiguity is concerned.

Obvious to you, perhaps, but not to others. One could draw a reasonable conclusion either way. That's what makes it ambiguous.

Not necessarily. The header "Other Household Members" is quite obviously plural. Not so with the header "Head of Household." One could make the case that there can be only one head of an entity -- the human body for example. In fact, I'm fairly confident that the term head as it applies to the one in charge is drawn from the analogy of human anatomy.

No. The placement of your wife's name just under yours identifies her as your spouse. The children are all in the category "Other Household Members." If the wife were placed under "Other Household Members" along with the children there would be no way to determine she was the wife and mother in the home.

Arguably the wife of the head of the household. See above.

Your argument would be more compelling if you could find a reasonable number of instances where the wife's name is listed above the husband's in the category "Head of Household." I doubt you can, but you are welcome to try.

It seems like, if the church really was concerned that the husband be known as the head of the house alone, they would not have changed the format. The old format took care of all the issues (there was never any doubt who the spouse was for example, nor children).

It just seems obvious, from the info we have right now (and maybe that will change and things will be made more clear later), that the ambiguity in the new design is not at all a concern for the church. That could reasonably be said to imply that as far as the church is concerned, both the husband and wife can be considered heads of the household with no repercussions if someone wishes to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems like, if the church really was concerned that the husband be known as the head of the house alone, they would not have changed the format. The old format took care of all the issues (there was never any doubt who the spouse was for example, nor children).

It just seems obvious, from the info we have right now (and maybe that will change and things will be made more clear later), that the ambiguity in the new design is not at all a concern for the church. That could reasonably be said to imply that as far as the church is concerned, both the husband and wife can be considered heads of the household with no repercussions if someone wishes to do so.

Or it could reasonably be said not to imply that.

And we're back to the ambiguity.

Which is why I caution against reading too much into a change in web design.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

If both are omnipotent and eternal I'm not sure how they could not be co-equal.

Christ is always subordinate to the Father. He always does His will in the scriptures, even after His resurrection.

Being one doesn't mean being equal (after all, we are asked to be one with Christ just as He is one with the Father, but we certainly aren't equal to Him). It means being united.

[DavidB]

deleted

Edited December 4, 2012 by DavidB

[bluebell]

Or it could reasonably be said not to imply that.

I don't believe so, simply because the change has been made from a form that clearly labeled the husband as the head of the household to one where both spouses are listed. My question becomes, why change it, if people are supposed to understand that the husband alone is too be considered the head of the household?

If that's what the church wants people to know from the information on the directory, then the change makes absolutely no sense. It's a huge fail, because of the ambiguity.

The mere existence of the change from such a clear statement prior seems like the strongest evidence that the church is fine with the ambiguity-something they would not be o.k. with if viewing the wife as part of the head of the household was flately wrong.

Like I said though, things might still be changing with the design. We'll just have to wait and see if it sticks and I guess also see if any other changes come down the pipe.

Edited December 4, 2012 by bluebell

[canard78]

I may have too much time on my hands:

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't believe so, simply because the change has been made from a form that clearly labeled the husband as the head of the household to one where both spouses are listed. My question becomes, why change it, if people are supposed to understand that the husband alone is too be considered the head of the household?

My impression is that this is only part of a broader change in web design.

This is not the first time the Church has redesigned its website, nor will it be the last. To conclude that the web redesign this time was merely to introduce ambiguity into the matter of who is designated head of the household strikes me as assuming facts not in evidence.

But as I said, I will be more persuaded if someone can demonstrate that in a reasonable number of instances, the wife's name is now listed first. That would go a long way toward persuading me that the intent now is to regard both husband and wife as household head.

[canard78]

I didn't think it through.

Don't say I don't do nuttin for ya... (post #57). As a thank you for your patient replies to my oft ramblings...

[canard78]

My impression is that this is only part of a broader change in web design.

This is not the first time the Church has redesigned its website, nor will it be the last. To conclude that the web redesign this time was merely to introduce ambiguity into the matter of who is designated head of the household strikes me as assuming facts not in evidence.

But as I said, I will be more persuaded if someone can demonstrate that in a reasonable number of instances, the wife's name is now listed first. That would go a long way toward persuading me that the intent now is to regard both husband and wife as household head.

It's not, it is always the man's listed first, it's just that the woman's is also in the head of HHD field, listed second (see the screen grab above). This is even when the man's name is alphabetically second. So if Ann and Zak Jones were there, Zak would still get listed first. At least that's what my directory is like. I don't know if it's physically possible to select a woman has HoHHD on MLS where a husband is a member. It's been a year since I had access to MLS directory editing and was never interested to test it.

[bluebell]

My impression is that this is only part of a broader change in web design.

This is not the first time the Church has redesigned its website, nor will it be the last. To conclude that the web redesign this time was merely to introduce ambiguity into the matter of who is designated head of the household strikes me as assuming facts not in evidence.

But as I said, I will be more persuaded if someone can demonstrate that in a reasonable number of instances, the wife's name is now listed first. That would go a long way toward persuading me that the intent now is to regard both husband and wife as household head.

I agree, i don't believe the new design is simply to introduce ambiguity. But i'm not yet ready to ignore the fact that ambiguity has been introduced, and that the church doesn't seem to care.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree, i don't believe the new design is simply to introduce ambiguity. But i'm not yet ready to ignore the fact that ambiguity has been introduced, and that the church doesn't seem to care.

Could be that the Church is not even conscious of the ambiguity. I had to think twice about it before it registered with me.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

Could be that the Church is not even conscious of the ambiguity. I had to think twice about it before it registered with me.

That certainly could be.

[Tacenda]

If you're talking about meal times and family prayer, I execute the duty in this way:

I use the electronic calendar on my iPod touch. We have six people in our household, so I schedule each person every sixth day as the designated giver of all the prayers for that day. It saves me from having to hem and haw, and no one can complain that he or she is being called on too often or not often enough, because my comeback can always be: "You are called on to pray once every six days, no more and no less often."

Why is it we as LDS, don't enjoy giving prayers? In my family we go in order of age. But it's something I've noticed in my lifetime. Why is it like that? Can someone put their finger on it?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Why is it we as LDS, don't enjoy giving prayers?

Odd. In my house, we sometimes rock off to see who gets to say the prayer, with that opportunity going to the winner.

[Tacenda]

Odd. In my house, we sometimes rock off to see who gets to say the prayer, with that opportunity going to the winner.

We totally live in different worlds Hamba!

[bluebell]

Why is it we as LDS, don't enjoy giving prayers? In my family we go in order of age. But it's something I've noticed in my lifetime. Why is it like that? Can someone put their finger on it?

I think it's laziness. It can be perceived as being easier to sit back and let someone else do it.

[Calm]

I think it's laziness. It can be perceived as being easier to sit back and let someone else do it.

It can also be shyness. Giving a prayer means one is the center of attention. There are many who find that very uncomfortable even among family. I know at least three people in this situation.

[Tacenda]

It can also be shyness. Giving a prayer means one is the center of attention. There are many who find that very uncomfortable even among family. I know at least three people in this situation.

Very true for me in public. But in my family I probably go way too long for my family, though trying to change it up some and make it less repetitive. I really like the thought of just conversing with Him as if he's in the room. A regular but respectful conversation. Haven't quite attempted that, my family already thinks I'm crazy. Edited December 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

We totally live in different worlds Hamba!

I was thinking the same thing. You should come visit sometime!

[Tacenda]

I was thinking the same thing. You should come visit sometime!

That would be a riot! Seriously though, I'm sure I would learn alot.

[bluebell]

It can also be shyness.

Very true.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pardon my reviving this old thread, but as a membership clerk requesting a transfer of a membership record, I ran across this instruction yesterday on the "Clerk Resources" function at lds.org. It confirms what I had long understood to be the case regarding the definition of "head of household":

Head of Household

The head of household is the person to whom all the other household member records are tied. Usually, the husband or father is the head of household. In certain cases the head of household may also be another member parent, a single adult member, or a member child whose parents are not members. The Membership Record Numbers (MRN) of all other members of the household are linked to the MRN of the head of household.

This should settle the question raised in this thread.

[bluebell]

Pardon my reviving this old thread, but as a membership clerk requesting a transfer of a membership record, I ran across this instruction yesterday on the "Clerk Resources" function at lds.org. It confirms what I had long understood to be the case regarding the definition of "head of household":

This should settle the question raised in this thread.

So it sounds like the designation of 'head of the household' on the ward directory has nothing to do with doctrine or any teachings on gender roles, but is purely a policy used to make organization of records easier.

[Scott Lloyd]

So it sounds like the designation of 'head of the household' on the ward directory has nothing to do with doctrine or any teachings on gender roles, but is purely a policy used to make organization of records easier.

That's a fair conclusion, given the fact that a child in the home might be designated as a head of household if neither of his/her parents are members, or a wife might be if the husband is not a member.

Edited to add:

That said, it also appears that where both the husband and the wife are present in the home and both are Church members, the husband/father will always be designated as the head of the household, that is to say, the person whose Membership Record Number is the one to which all other Membership Record Numbers in the home are tied. This has always been the case, and it appears it hasn't changed.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd