Local Leaders In Boston Stake Reduce 3-Hour Block - Sorta

[The Nehor]

You mean the Social Relations class?

We call the people out in the hall the "Gospel Dysfunctionals" class.

[Scott Lloyd]

Our dear SP teaches the handbook at every meeting of the HC and Stake Bishopric.

 

Our stake is somewhat unusual in its circumstances.  We have gone through some radical changes and I suppose not all are on the same bandwagon yet.  I suppose others have less of a problem than we do.

You have a "Stake Bishopric"? I guess being prone to distance decay is worse than I thought!

[Scott Lloyd]

Is Relief Society part of the Temple Recommend question? I don't recall that but maybe it's because it doesn't apply to me. Sunday school may be optional but even if the others are required I don't recall anything that requires a certain length to those meetings. Couldn't they all be shortened if necessary?

Whether or not they could, it's obviously not a decision to be made on a local level without direction from above. That is the clear lesson from this episode.

[Steve-o]

I'm guessing that they don't do this without the knowledge and approval of Church leadership in a supervisory role. Again, the rapidity with the which the Boston stake was slapped down on this, indicates to me that the were loping off on their own without giving any attention at all to guidelines or proper order.

 

Nothing Otterson said indicates to me that local leaders are free to ignore or neglect guidance from higher authority. I daresay if the stake leaders in Boston had checked with their Area Seventy first -- or even just double-checked the handbook -- this whole scenario would have been avoided.

That seems to be exactly the message he was sending as he was trying to minimize the damage of the new policy by suggesting that leaders are given guidelines and they must utilize the spirit to see how a policy applies. In this case, assuming the Stake President was directed by the spirit, it seems clear the spirit is not a high enough authority. That seems contradictory.

 

 

Otterson, Understanding the Handbook;

 

One difficulty was a general lack of understanding of the Handbook itself, which is a guide for lay leaders of the church in 30,000 congregations across the world. A purpose of the Handbook is to provide bishops and other leaders with a standard reference point when they make decisions. Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost."

It seems members and leaders misunderstood the handbook to be something more definitive than it was, yet every practical application shows that local leaders really don't have authority to make exceptions to handbook 1

 

It was a strange claim by Otterson and we can see the church doesn't really follow his approach to the handbook.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Steve-o

[mfbukowski]

I can understand what you're saying, and I get your point.

On the other hand, with email, the Internet, text messaging, social media, satellite broadcasting and live Internet streaming, etc., it just seems to me we should be less prone to distance decay in this day and age than we have ever been before, even earlier in my own lifetime.

I agree, but it is more a psychological issue than anything. It's a question of feeling isolated. The reality may be different but the psychology is what matters.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why is this off the reservation? A Stake President presides over the unites in his stake. He can go so far as cancelling church in certain circumstances so why wouldn't he feel he had the authority to reduce meetings for other reasons?

 

I see this as a bold move but not as some kind of crazy, apostate, move done by someone off the reservation.

The report surfaced on Dehlin's blog in the morning. On that very day, the Church went online with a public statement that the stake leaders in Boston realized they had not been following guidelines and had dropped their "experiment."

 

Doesn't this tell you something?

[Steve-o]

Whether or not they could, it's obviously not a decision to be made on a local level without direction from above. That is the clear lesson from this episode.

I agree that they shouldn't have been surprised by this. Maybe they didn't expect their plans to be made known. It sounds like it was only intended to be an experiment for a brief time.

[Scott Lloyd]

I want one of those. Where can I get it?

[Steve-o]

The report surfaced on Dehlin's blog in the morning. On that very day, the Church went online with a public statement that the stake leaders in Boston realized they had not been following guidelines and had dropped their "experiment."

 

Doesn't this tell you something?

It does tell me something and I'm trying very hard to be generous in my interpretation. Still, I can't help noticing the difference in the church responding to this the same day whereas it took them an entire week to make a statement about the recent policy. It appears they can act quickly when they deem it necessary.

[The Nehor]

That seems to be exactly the message he was sending as he was trying to minimize the damage of the new policy by suggesting that leaders are given guidelines and they must utilize the spirit to see how a policy applies. In this case, assuming the Stake President was directed by the spirit, it seems clear the spirit is not a high enough authority. That seems contradictory.

 

It seems members and leaders misunderstood the handbook to be something more definitive than it was, yet every practical application shows that local leaders really don't have authority to make exceptions to handbook 1

 

It was a strange claim by Otterson and we can see the church doesn't really follow his approach to the handbook.

 

You may want to review the role of Priesthood Keys in the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that they shouldn't have been surprised by this. Maybe they didn't expect their plans to be made known. It sounds like it was only intended to be an experiment for a brief time.

A quick call or email to the Area Seventy would have been a simple matter. When they start trying to do things under the radar, as it were, I see a red flag right there.

 

What were they going to do if they felt their "experiment" succeeded and they wanted to continue? Ask forgiveness instead of permission? Or continue to act under the radar and hope not too many outside the stake took notice?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It does tell me something and I'm trying very hard to be generous in my interpretation. Still, I can't help noticing the difference in the church responding to this the same day whereas it took them an entire week to make a statement about the recent policy. It appears they can act quickly when they deem it necessary.

I anticipated this would come up in this discussion.

 

I think they did act quickly with regard to the fallout from the recent policy -- as quickly as they could while exercising due care and caution so as to convey the message in a way in which their intentions were not apt to be misunderstood, misconstrued and publicly distorted yet again.

 

It doesn't require a lot of advance deliberation to inform a stake presidency they have gone out of line and to stop it.

[KevinG]

I want one of those. Where can I get it?

 

https://buyolympia.com/q/Item=will-bryant-i-survived-another-meeting-ribbon

 

$3.50 with a discount for orders of 10 or more.

[Scott Lloyd]

That seems to be exactly the message he was sending as he was trying to minimize the damage of the new policy by suggesting that leaders are given guidelines and they must utilize the spirit to see how a policy applies. In this case, assuming the Stake President was directed by the spirit, it seems clear the spirit is not a high enough authority. That seems contradictory.

 

They need to rely on direction from the Spirit and on guidance from those who are in authority. Both are needed.

 

It seems members and leaders misunderstood the handbook to be something more definitive than it was, yet every practical application shows that local leaders really don't have authority to make exceptions to handbook 1

 

It was a strange claim by Otterson and we can see the church doesn't really follow his approach to the handbook.

 

See above.

 

As mfbukowsi indicated, the problem seems to be that the Church at large ignores the handbook altogether, not that they don't follow Otterson's approach to it.

[cinepro]

You may want to review the role of Priesthood Keys in the church.

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why the length of meetings should be a matter needing "Priesthood Keys". 

 

Last Sunday we finished our EQ lesson five minutes early.  Should someone have protested that the teacher (and EQ President) do not have the proper keys to authorize a lesson being five minutes shorter, and thus we must sit there and talk about doctrine until the appointed hour? 

 

The only reason I can think of the Church not wanting local leaders to have this latitude is that common sense would prevail, and as more and more leaders realized that there was no negative effects of shortening the meeting times (and many saints would be ecstatic), and as those areas with shorter meeting times became more and more popular, agency would run amuck and home values in certain stakes along the Wasatch front would plummet as word got out, leading to economic hardship in certain areas and a "race to the bottom" as stakes and wards vied for membership with increasingly short meetings, until finally we have meetinghouse kiosks set up in mall parking lots where members can get a drive-through sacrament administered before heading back home.

 

Truly, disaster in the Church has been averted by this quick action, and safe uniformity will rule the day once again.

[cinepro]

And I think somewhere in Boston there is a Stake President who will never be an Area Seventy.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't for the life of me figure out why the length of meetings should be a matter needing "Priesthood Keys". 

 

Last Sunday we finished our EQ lesson five minutes early.  Should someone have protested that the teacher (and EQ President) do not have the proper keys to authorize a lesson being five minutes shorter, and thus we must sit there and talk about doctrine until the appointed hour? 

 

The only reason I can think of the Church not wanting local leaders to have this latitude is that common sense would prevail, and as more and more leaders realized that there was no negative effects of shortening the meeting times (and many saints would be ecstatic), and as those areas with shorter meeting times became more and more popular, agency would run amuck and home values in certain stakes along the Wasatch front would plummet as word got out, leading to economic hardship in certain areas and a "race to the bottom" as stakes and wards vied for membership with increasingly short meetings, until finally we have meetinghouse kiosks set up in mall parking lots where members can get a drive-through sacrament administered before heading back home.

 

Truly, disaster in the Church has been averted by this quick action, and safe uniformity will rule the day once again.

Somewhere, I think there must be a happy medium between "common sense" and distance decay.

 

The Church is and always will be subject to centralized, top-down (meaning Christ and the apostles) leadership and administration. That seems to be the way the Lord does things.

 

After the deaths of Christ and the original apostles -- perhaps unavoidably -- the church got away from the centralized leadership and a general apostasy resulted, necessitating a latter-day Restoration in a time when such a thing was less apt to occur.

[PeterPear]

I have frankly felt uncomfortable in an all white homogeneous congregation. Everyone looks like there 10 face types, and they repeat. Senior male Type 7. Primary Female 3, blonde and blue dress.

 

Your Picasso face always freaks me out when I see it. ..emaciated, confused..blank stare.. Picasso? really?

[KevinG]

Somewhere, I think there must be a happy medium between "common sense" and distance decay.

 

...for those of us who fear the inexorable decline into Utah Mormonism.  

 

 

Edit: No response from Scott.  How disappointing to push buttons and not have them ring.  

Edited November 24, 2015 by KevinG

[mfbukowski]

You have a "Stake Bishopric"? I guess being prone to distance decay is worse than I thought!

Lol stake bishopric meeting!

[mfbukowski]

Your Picasso face always freaks me out when I see it. ..emaciated, confused..blank stare.. Picasso? really?

Your perception. It's a test of your perception of reality.

Constructivism in action.

[Duncan]

Lol stake bishopric meeting!

 

 

Stake Bishopric meeting? and what is that abut eh?

[toon]

I hope they don't eliminate second hour Sunday School. When would the Saints find time to socialize in the hallway?

 

Or even cross the street for a quick bowl of pho.

[toon]

Well here's what I have in response:

 

(Isaiah 58:13-14, boldface emphasis mine)

 

So do you wanna play dueling scriptural passages? I'm pretty good at that myself.

 

Because as we all know, members just cannot be trusted with an extra 1/2 hour of free time on a Sunday.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because as we all know, members just cannot be trusted with an extra 1/2 hour of free time on a Sunday.

Just sayin' that, with some folks, the need-more-time-with-my-family-on-Sunday excuse might be a crock.