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

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed and this prophet has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism and Jewish practice. If Mormons want to be Jewish and observe Torah then they have a great deal of changes to make.

This isn't some sort of backhanded attack. The prophets in Hebrew Bible times functioned vastly different from those in the modern LDS church.

Prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ hold the apostolic office stemming from Peter, James and John.

[rodheadlee]

This is just bizarre that a SP would go so far off the reservation. As much as I sympathize with his reasoning for the change, I can't imagine actually doing so without direction from above.

On a side note, is there anyone here who would be disappointed if the church moved to a two hour block schedule?

I would be disappointed.

[Damien the Leper]

Prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ hold the apostolic office stemming from Peter, James and John.

But not in the way that apostolic succession remains intact within Eastern Orthodoxy. Their priesthood resides within the first century church.

The LDS priesthood skipped a few thousand years and is not based in apostolic tradition. It is a separate authority having no weight or bearing on the early Christian church that has become Orthodoxy. Authority still stands with Constantinople, the Metropolitans and the Bishops.

[Antoni]

It is sad that members feel spending 3 hours of their week at church is such a sacrifice. 

 

I for one would be very disappointed if reducing it happened. Sabbath for me is about spending time at church with fellow saints, sharing the sacrament, learning, socialising and serving. I'm also near enough my local Temple to attend firesides there on Sunday evenings. It's wonderful to be able to spend my sabbath at church. We sometimes have a lunch after the block too and those are precious times of fellowship and no one I know complains that they're at church too much on a Sunday.

 

I am fond of my late Sunday afternoon nap I will admit

 

Light, Love and Peace

[sunstoned]

The man is a former president and CEO of Dell Computers and a millionaire. Even with his present lapse in judgment, my guess is he could make a fine Church leader on any level.

We should not judge the man.  Perhaps he was following the promptings of the spirit.  You keep bringing up the fact that SLC responded so quickly to this perceived challenge to their total and complete control in a positive way.  It don't see it as all that positive.  

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I think so. How we run our MIA program, including frequency isn't something we need to "be commanded in all things" about. I think there are many things where we can use initiative and inspiration for whatever fits our members' needs best, without feeling that we need to get formal approval for everything.

Deviating from the three-hour block is something my radar would have told me is verboten even before this incident. So is simply eliminating the Scouting program entirely, even though I would really welcome and applaud that.

When I was a bishop last, I worked without an executive secretary (in a big ward). My original one was called to be the stake executive secretary two weeks after he was called, and he succeeded me as bishop. The other two I had were awful, and I much prefer to make my own appointments and cancellations/reschedules, anyway. Easier for the ward members, easier for me. A counselor in the stake presidency told me that I had to have one, and I pulled "handbook" on him and asked where it says that I have to have one. In my current ward, my exec. sec. is wonderful, and even though I would prefer not to have one, I don't want to rock the boat and work without him.

I also didn't have a Sunday School president, and don't have one now (I released the one who was in when I got called and put him where we needed him more). I don't think the stake would be happy about that, but I'm not asking for permission.

This is exactly how it is in the trenches.

No one who hasn't sat in that seat will ever get it. You ask forgiveness, not permission.

[Garden Girl]

It is sad that members feel spending 3 hours of their week at church is such a sacrifice. 

 

 

I am fond of my late Sunday afternoon nap I will admit

 

Light, Love and Peace

 

Hello Antoni...

I too love my Sunday afternoons when I get home from Church, and particularly my Sunday naps...  Although I'm retired and able to be home daily, there is something about coming home from Church, grabbing a bite, and then relaxing by snoozing in my big chair... no other day "feels" the same complete peace...

 

GG

[rongo]

I remember meeting you in Maricopa several years ago. A close friend was in your ward. I'm rather fond of the topics you issues for Sacrament talks. Far from the "same ol', same ol'". I'm glad to hear you're a bishop again.

Thanks, Valentinus! 

 

I had been planning this topic (reduce and simplify) for tomorrow's 5th Sunday combined adult topic, anyway, before this thread and the Boston thing happened. Elder Robbins spoke on this at the regional Southwest area stake conference in November.

 

Here are my handout notes (there are a few typos I'm aware of after proofreading, but oh, well):

---

 

(From A Plea to Stake Presidents, Boyd K. Packer, Leadership Training Meeting, April 1, 1988)

 

“[Families] desperately need the gospel, and they need Church programs and activities as well. But, if activities cost more in time and money than they can reasonably give, they may be pushed away from the gospel . . .”

 

“As I reviewed the many times this message was sent from the First Presidency and the Twelve, I thought of entitling my remarks A Message Unheeded . . . [President Packer then detailed how many calls for reduction in programs and simplification from 1939 to 1978] . . . That year, President Kimball said, ‘Brethren and sisters, this is a shocking thing to me . . . to come to a realization of what we have been attempting to do . . . all with the best of intentions.’ He said that the cost of membership was ‘becoming prohibitive for members of the Church, and they find it very difficult and sometimes we lose members of the Church because they do not want to admit they cannot afford the things we expect’ . . . That was in 1978. In 1982, they printed it in the Priesthood Bulletin. It was repeated verbatim in 1984, 1985, and 1987. Brethren, as President Romney used to say, ‘How many tellins does it take?”

 

“You brethren from the Andes are familiar with the llama. A member of the camel family, it has an interesting characteristic. There is a very set limit as to how much this beast of burden will carry. Ninety pounds is the limit. If more weight is placed on its back, it will simply surrender; give up. It will like down and will not move until some of the burden is lifted. It does not bite or kick or spit. It simply lies down and will not get up until the load is reduced.”

 

“Some things are not optional. Tithing is a commandment and a key to blessings. And we must stress offerings as well. But remember, brethren, an offering is not an offering if it is assessed.”

 

“A common remedy is to pay all or part of the expenses for those with less. Sometimes it must be done, but there is a hidden spiritual cost. We stress industry, thrift, and self-reliance only to find these very virtues, once established, may work against us. For one determined to be self-reliant, an assessment he cannot reasonably meet calls up conflicting emotions. Those feelings of dependency are not good feelings for a Latter-day Saint.”

 

“We must never forget to teach the law of consecration and the law of sacrifice. But remember, they are His to enforce, not ours. Though we may require much of the Saints, to impose more than is our right as leaders, however well-intentioned, is to presume upon a prerogative that is not ours unless the servants of the Lord direct us.”

 

“Some words do not fit well together in the Church. “Guilt” doesn’t go well with “assignment,” for example, or the words “temple” and “quota” or “peace” and “pressure.”

 

“There is some risk associated with what I am saying. Perhaps some will excuse themselves and do little or nothing. That is not much of a risk considering what happens when people cannot pay the price asked of them.”

 

“We know, dear brethren, that much of what you do is imposed on you from Church Headquarters. We are trying, earnestly trying, to get a hold of that . . . But when it comes to local control, you brethren have great latitude and can do more to help than we can. Together with your bishops, please consider what the First Presidency has repeated so many times: ‘Carefully review your stake budgets together with those things not included in the budget that require donations of time or money from members. Determine if reduction in these costs may be made. Some less essential activities may have to be curtailed or eliminated. This may include activities that require travel or frequent contributions from members.’ ”

 

(From The Lord’s Way, Thomas S. Monson, New Budget Program Satellite Broadcast, February 18, 1990)

 

“Really, it depends upon whether the leaders of the Young Men and Young Women have been following our direction to keep their activities closer to home and more modest, or whether they have been among those who each year have found it necessary to accelerate the glamor of activities.”

 

“The primary responsibility for building testimonies and providing faith-building experiences in our members resides in the home. The Church should continue to support the determination of the family to do this . . . It is not necessary to buy the activities of our youth. Our youth activities depart from the pattern of the world . . . Many of our youth activities in recent years have supplanted the home and family. There has been a tendency for us to think that an activity must be exotic to be successful . . . The word spreads, the costs escalate, and yearning increases, while objectives dim and time commitments of leaders and youth border on the burdensome. Errantly we have used the term ‘Super Activity’ . . .”

 

(From Rise to a Larger Vision of the Work, Gordon B. Hinckley, New Budget Program Satellite Broadcast, February 18, 1990)

 

“With reference to activities, may I say that I regard them as important . . . Social opportunities are necessary. People enjoy one another’s company and it is essential that they have the opportunity to do so. But perhaps we have gone too far in providing for some beyond what is needed or what is best in terms of the individuals and their families. It should be recognized that this Church is not a social club. It is the Kingdom of God on the earth. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

 

“Let us not get all worked up about activities that now may not be possible. These might provide wonderful fun, and people, we all agree, need to have fun under the direction of Church officers and leaders. But these leaders and teachers, and our youth, are men and women of ingenuity who with faith and prayer can work out activities costing little in time and money that will yield tremendous dividends in recreation and faith-building activities.”

 

(From Teach Them Correct Principles, Boyd K. Packer, New Budget Program Satellite Broadcast, February 18, 1990)

 

“We have also heard of some very clever inventions calculated to circumvent the instructions and maintain some expensive and extravagant activities we are accustomed to. These resourceful people will have cause to repent once they understand the spirit of the decision. Those clever practices will soon fade as you learn the purpose for it all.”

 

“Did you notice that each of these statements [cf. A Plea to Stake Presidents, above] called for a reduction in both time and money required of members? ‘I have told you many times,’ Brigham Young said, ‘the property which we inherit from our Heavenly Father is our time and the power to choose in the disposition of the same.’ [Journal of Discourses 18:354]. Some of you have asked why this change should come just when the forces of temptation are surrounding our youth as never before. ‘Do we not need more impressive activities and more meetings, rather than fewer?’ Sometimes more can be less, and sometimes less is more. Even with all we expend and all we do, we are not doing as well as we should and have little evidence that activities really secure our youth.”

 

“[After an extended discussion of the allegory of the olive trees in Jacob 5, with agonizing on the part of the Lord of the vineyard over what more He could have done for it after extended efforts] It was the servant, it is always the servant, who said ‘Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard --- have not the branches thereof overcome the roots, which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots, behold, they grew faster than the roots, taking strength unto themselves’ [Jacob 5:48]. Meetings and activities can multiply until they ‘take strength unto themselves,’ at the expense of the gospel --- of true worship.”

 

“This change will have the effect of returning most of the responsibility for teaching and counselling and activity to the family where it belongs. While there will still be activities, they will be scaled down in cost of both time and money. There will be fewer intrusions into family schedules and in the family purses. Church activities must be replaced with family activities. Just as with temporal self-reliance, the spirit of independence, thrift, and self-reliance will be re-enthroned in the homes of Latter-day Saints . . . This decision will set a better balance between families being assessed time and money to support Church activities, with Church activities complimenting what families should do for themselves. This is a difficult balance because some families need more support than others. Perhaps we have been over-programming stable families to meet the needs of those with problems. We must seek a better way.”

 

“When we press people too hard, we infer that they aren’t good enough providers. If you understand anything about the human ego at all, you will know that people will withdraw from activity rather than say they can’t afford the time or money cost.”

 

(From Let Them Govern Themselves, Boyd K. Packer, Regional Representatives Seminar, March 30, 1990)

 

“To me, this ‘small thing’ is among the major decisions that I shall have witnessed in my lifetime . . . In recent years, we might be compared to a team of doctors issuing prescriptions to cure or to immunize our members against spiritual diseases. Each time some moral or spiritual ailment is diagnosed, we rush to the pharmacy to concoct another remedy, encapsulate it as a Church program, and send it out with pages of directions for use. While we all seem to agree that over-medication --- over-programming --- is a critically serious problem, we have failed to reduce the treatments. It has been virtually impossible to affect any reduction in programs. Each time we try, advocates cry to high heaven that we are putting spiritual lives at risk. If symptoms reappear, we program even heavier doses of interviews, activities, meetings, and assessments.

 

“The best answer, perhaps, is to withdraw all prescriptions and start over. The whole correlation effort, which took about twenty years, followed that course and much was accomplished . . .

 

“We now have ourselves in a corner. For instance, we have reason to be seriously concerned about the lack of reverence in the Church. Perhaps this one thing, general across the world, is as much an interference with and short-circuiting of inspiration as anything that could be pointed to. However, I dare not press for the correction of that issue because we do not seem to be able solve any problem without designing a program with pages of instructions and sending it out again . . .

 

“The hardest ailment to treat is a virtue carried to the extreme. We cannot seem to learn that too much, even of a good thing, or too many good things, like vitamins taken in overdose, can be harmful.

 

“In recent years I have felt that we are losing the ability to correct the course of the Church. You cannot appreciate how deeply I feel about this unless you know the reverence I have for the Book of Mormon and how seriously I take the warnings of the prophets, particularly Alma and Helaman. Both Alma and Helaman told of the church in their day. They warned about rapid growth, desire to be accepted by the world and be popular, and especially they warned about prosperity. Each time these conditions existed in combination, the church drifted off-course. All of those conditions are present in the Church today . . .

 

“Local leaders have been effectively conditioned to hold back until programmed as to what to do, how, to whom, when, and for how long. Can you see that when we over-emphasize programs, we are in danger of losing the inspiration and resourcefulness that should characterize Latter-day Saints? Then the very principle of revelation is in jeopardy and we drift from a fundamental gospel principle! . . .

 

“This change will cause a reduction in programs and activities; that we intended. I quickly admit that there are risks involved when we simplify instructions or loosen up on regimentation . . .

 

“So, the problem, Regional Representatives! There will be the tendency for local leaders to want to use that [freed-up] time and build up more detailed programs of their own . . . And, there will always be those who go to the other extreme and want to cancel all activities. That is not what I’m talking about, not at all . . .

 

“I repeat, perhaps for one time only we have the opportunity to adjust the balance so that Church activities sustain parents and families rather than the other way around. Now, there will be smaller budgets and fewer activities, fewer programs. That will leave a vacuum. Nothing likes a vacuum. We must resist the temptation to program that vacuum. That space belongs to families. When we cut down on Sundays to the block schedule that consolidated our meetings and left time open, you know what happened. Brethren, it is their time. Let them use it as they feel to do --- for better or for worse. That is the risk. If we fail to teach them correct principles and doctrine, they will not know how to govern themselves. If we do, then that vacuum will be filled with prayer and work and study, study for school and study of the gospel. It will be filled with the intimate love between husband and wife and the tender love of parents to children. There will come a safe and virtuous dependency. Latter-day Saints will come to depend on the Lord instead of on the headquarters of the Church . . .We can effect a course correction and see the Church delivered safely to the next generation . . .

 

“I once thought that the family was unfairly neglected in the Church. I used to worry as we designed programs to fit the weak, unstable family, scheduling for men, women, children, youth, young adults, singles, everything, with too little attention paid to the effect they were having on families. But for the family there is no such thing, not so much as a committee. The family has been everybody’s business. Everybody’s business, as we know, is nobody’s business. I remember when some pressed for a form and an interview so that families could report their compliance with the family home evening program. We did not permit it. And to this day, we have some who want to require formal interviews between parents and their children, with forms.

 

“I once wondered if we should create a committee to represent the family, but on more serious reflection, I changed my view. There are some things that cannot be counted and should not be programmed. The matters with the deepest doctrinal significance must be left to couples and parents to decide for themselves. We cannot program individual and family prayer. The family is apart from and above the other organizations and, under sealing authority, more enduring then them all . . .

 

“I have but to ask one ‘what if?’ question. What if, in the correlation process, we had organized a general board of the family? The very thought sends chills of horror through my being.”

[Scott Lloyd]

But not in the way that apostolic succession remains intact within Eastern Orthodoxy. Their priesthood resides within the first century church.

The LDS priesthood skipped a few thousand years and is not based in apostolic tradition. It is a separate authority having no weight or bearing on the early Christian church that has become Orthodoxy. Authority still stands with Constantinople, the Metropolitans and the Bishops.

It "skipped a few thousand years" only because the general apostasy that had been prophesied came to pass, followed by a restoration of priesthood keys and authority in the latter days.

 

If the traditions of other faith groups are different, it is because they were left to evolve on their own after priesthood keys and authority had been taken from the earth.

[Scott Lloyd]

We should not judge the man.  Perhaps he was following the promptings of the spirit.  You keep bringing up the fact that SLC responded so quickly to this perceived challenge to their total and complete control in a positive way.  It don't see it as all that positive.  

The authority to receive revelation and divine direction to govern the Church as a whole rests with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. As clearly set forth in the handbook, setting the Sunday meeting schedule for the entire Church is well within their purview, and it is not to be altered by some local leader out in the hinterlands, however well-meaning that person may be.

 

And I am not judging the man, only pointing out the obvious fact that he departed from guidelines that are in place for the entire Church.

 

Edited to add:

 

Just wondering if you missed the part in your own quotation of me where I said my guess is that the stake president in Boston, given his background, could make a fine Church leader on any level?

 

If that's harsh criticism, give me that sort of criticism.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

The authority to receive revelation and divine direction to govern the Church as a whole rests with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. As clearly set forth in the handbook, setting the Sunday meeting schedule for the entire Church is well within their purview, and it is not to be altered by some local leader out in the hinterlands, however well-meaning that person may be.

And I am not judging the man, only pointing out the obvious fact that he departed from guidelines that are in place for the entire Church.

You have an interesting view of "judging":

"I'm wondering how a stake leadership could have gotten off the rails this badly. It's not as though we live in a time when communication with Church headquarters is difficult. And in a place like Boston they could be expected to be literate enough to read and comprehend a handbook."

So it is not judging to say someone has "gotten off the rails this badly"?

Granted, the bolded part is more aptly described as outright ridicule of the Lord's chosen leader.

"they were loping off on their own without giving any attention at all to guidelines or proper order."

That is not judging either?

"ill-advised initiative bt the stake leadership in Boston"

Again, not judging? Or is it better described as ridicule of the Lord's chosen?

Edited November 29, 2015 by provoman

[Scott Lloyd]

You have an interesting view of "judging":

"I'm wondering how a stake leadership could have gotten off the rails this badly. It's not as though we live in a time when communication with Church headquarters is difficult. And in a place like Boston they could be expected to be literate enough to read and comprehend a handbook."

So it is not judging to say someone has "gotten off the rails this badly"?

Granted, the bolded part is more aptly described as outright ridicule of the Lord's chosen leader.

"they were loping off on their own without giving any attention at all to guidelines or proper order."

That is not judging either?

"ill-advised initiative bt the stake leadership in Boston"

Again, not judging? Or is it better described as ridicule of the Lord's chosen?

And so it is that we are presented yet again with the ironic spectacle of persons judgmentally passing judgment upon others for allegedly being judgmental.

 

Edited to add:

 

Just wondering if provoman missed the part where I said my guess is that the stake president in Boston, given his background, could make a fine Church leader on any level.

 

If that's harsh criticism, give me that sort of criticism.

 

But I stand by my observation that the would-be initiative in Boston was ill-considered and blatantly contrary to guidelines. And I stand by my statement that I am judging the act, not any person or persons. The Church's statement indicated that it was well-meaning, and I have no doubt that it was -- well-meaning but ill-considered.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/29/2015 at 7:53 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

It "skipped a few thousand years" only because the general apostasy that had been prophesied came to pass, followed by a restoration of priesthood keys and authority in the latter days.

 

If the traditions of other faith groups are different, it is because they were left to evolve on their own after priesthood keys and authority had been taken from the earth.

Eastern Orthodoxy came directly from the original 12 apostles and has remained unbroken since then. The LDS perspective on what happened is not the be all end all or final say on the matter. This "falling away" claim is rather tiresome, mundane and lacks weight of authority.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/5/2016 at 2:06 AM, Valentinus said:

Eastern Orthodoxy came directly from the original 12 apostles and has remained unbroken since then. The LDS perspective on what happened is not the be all end all or final say on the matter.

Actually it is.

Quote

This "falling away" claim is rather tiresome, mundane and lacks weight of authority.

Depends on whose "authority" you hold to, I suppose.

Acutally, authority (the divine, God-conferred kind) is the doctrinal concept that gives The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints its validity.

On this, see Elder D. Todd Christofferson here.

By the way, with your response coming well over a month after my post, I'm scarcely able  to resist issuing a thread necromancy alert.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

On ‎30‎/‎11‎/‎2015 at 1:25 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

And so it is that we are presented yet again with the ironic spectacle of persons judgmentally passing judgment upon others for allegedly being judgmental.

 

Edited to add:

 

Just wondering if provoman missed the part where I said my guess is that the stake president in Boston, given his background, could make a fine Church leader on any level.

 

If that's harsh criticism, give me that sort of criticism.

 

But I stand by my observation that the would-be initiative in Boston was ill-considered and blatantly contrary to guidelines. And I stand by my statement that I am judging the act, not any person or persons. The Church's statement indicated that it was well-meaning, and I have no doubt that it was -- well-meaning but ill-considered.

At the risk of necromancing the the thread, the only problem in Boston was shortening the block without direct approval from higher up the leadership chain. The block is hardly sacrosanct, there are situations where a shorter block makes sense, and benefits members' need.

[Zakuska]

22 minutes ago, volgadon said:

At the risk of necromancing the the thread, the only problem in Boston was shortening the block without direct approval from higher up the leadership chain. The block is hardly sacrosanct, there are situations where a shorter block makes sense, and benefits members' need.

Case in point... Our family has a condo at Snowbird. We go up 1 week each year. They created a branch just for us (snowbird people) and the "block" is cut back to 1.5 hrs.  50 minutes for sacrament meeting and then the rest for an abreviated sunday school / Gospel Doctrine class. We appreaciate it very much so the entire family (cousins, aunts uncles, grand ma gpa) can go to church all together once a year. Its probably the weirdest branch in the church since they have a different congregation every Sunday.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, volgadon said:

At the risk of necromancing the the thread, the only problem in Boston was shortening the block without direct approval from higher up the leadership chain. The block is hardly sacrosanct, there are situations where a shorter block makes sense, and benefits members' need.

That's not what happened in Boston. They were clearly off on a tangent with anticipated permanent changes, shortening of class instruction time, limiting or curtailing elements such as choir rehearsals, etc.

If the only problem was that they didn't get advance approval, why were they not allowed to push on after being reprimanded for not seeking permission first?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Case in point... Our family has a condo at Snowbird. We go up 1 week each year. They created a branch just for us (snowbird people) and the "block" is cut back to 1.5 hrs.  50 minutes for sacrament meeting and then the rest for an abreviated sunday school / Gospel Doctrine class. We appreaciate it very much so the entire family (cousins, aunts uncles, grand ma gpa) can go to church all together once a year. Its probably the weirdest branch in the church since they have a different congregation every Sunday.

 

This is a different matter. In vacation resorts such as Snowbird, there is standing approval to alter the standard meeting block, just as there is in the old folks home that is part of the stake I belong to.

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

On 11/28/2015 at 3:14 AM, Antoni said:

It is sad that members feel spending 3 hours of their week at church is such a sacrifice. 

 

I for one would be very disappointed if reducing it happened. Sabbath for me is about spending time at church with fellow saints, sharing the sacrament, learning, socialising and serving. I'm also near enough my local Temple to attend firesides there on Sunday evenings. It's wonderful to be able to spend my sabbath at church. We sometimes have a lunch after the block too and those are precious times of fellowship and no one I know complains that they're at church too much on a Sunday.

 

I am fond of my late Sunday afternoon nap I will admit

 

Light, Love and Peace

This has got to be out of the Mormon corridor, right?   Lunch after the block?  Firesides at the temple?  Don't envy those of us that live near church headquarters.  That just sounds out there, but very nice.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Thread necromancy alert!

[Zakuska]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a different matter. In vacation resorts such as Snowbird, there is standing approval to alter the standard meeting block, just as there is in the old folks home that is part of the stake I belong to.

 

How about Military bases? Does the church allow for differing block schedules in these situations?

I hear they are toying with the idea of a 4 hr block schedule.

http://www.ldsdaily.com/entertainment/church-announces-4-hour-block-new-curriculum/

Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[Rain]

On Wednesday, January 06, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Zakuska said:

Case in point... Our family has a condo at Snowbird. We go up 1 week each year. They created a branch just for us (snowbird people) and the "block" is cut back to 1.5 hrs.  50 minutes for sacrament meeting and then the rest for an abreviated sunday school / Gospel Doctrine class. We appreaciate it very much so the entire family (cousins, aunts uncles, grand ma gpa) can go to church all together once a year. Its probably the weirdest branch in the church since they have a different congregation every Sunday.

 

I have attended branches like this at Yellowstone, the Tetons, University hospital and LDS hospital. Many of those who go work in the parks or at the hospitals so they will be regular attenders, at least for the summer. I agree that it was really nice to have that opportunity, both as a one time at tender and as a regular for different reasons.

[Antoni]

On 7 January 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tacenda said:

This has got to be out of the Mormon corridor, right?   Lunch after the block?  Firesides at the temple?  Don't envy those of us that live near church headquarters.  That just sounds out there, but very nice.  

Indeed it is "out of the Mormon corridor" - which is where most Mormons live  

[Gray]

This would be an example of a potential source of revelation that has been cut off by correlation. We never would have had singles wards if the church operated this way in the 60s. 

[Calm]

Why not?  A request could have been submitted and considered and pssibly accepted.  How would correlation prevent that?