Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

They shut down the experiment before the results of it were known. Without correlation, the Boston stake might have discovered that with shorter meetings activity increased by 15%, and members reported more spiritual meetings across all wards. Then they could have invited general authorities to take a look at what they'd done with their autonomy. 

But now we'll never know. 

Edited by Gray
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

They shut down the experiment before the results of it were known. Without correlation, the Boston stake might have discovered that with shorter meetings activity increased by 15%, and members reported more spiritual meetings across all wards. Then they could have invited general authorities to take a look at what they'd done with their autonomy. 

But now we'll never know. 

There have been a number of experiments over the last decade with different variations on the block in a variety of places, including two hours from what I've heard.  The results were already available.

Posted
On ‎07‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 6:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

If it worked well, then wouldn't it have been logical to continue it on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. That is kind of stating the obvious. You are also making the assumption that approval would be automatically given just because it is the right thing after a reprimand. I've seen enough examples to know that things don't always work out that way.

Posted
1 hour ago, Calm said:

There have been a number of experiments over the last decade with different variations on the block in a variety of places, including two hours from what I've heard.  The results were already available.

Maybe the Boston stake would have put some spin on the reduced schedule that would have been very beneficial. But now we'll never know. 

Posted
On 1/7/2016 at 6:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

 

3 hours ago, volgadon said:

If it worked well, then wouldn't it have been logical to continue it on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. That is kind of stating the obvious.

Obviously, the desire among the leadership of the Church is to maintain global standardization of the schedule for Sunday worship services and classes. If the stake leadership in Boston had been left to execute their plans, it would have opened a Pandora's box: one local unit shortening a meeting or class time here, another eliminating elements altogether there (such as ward choirs), etc.

Quote

You are also making the assumption that approval would be automatically given just because it is the right thing after a reprimand. I've seen enough examples to know that things don't always work out that way.

So you appear to be tacitly agreeing with my point that there is more involved here than merely the failure to get advance approval for what they were doing.

Posted
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Obviously, the desire among the leadership of the Church is to maintain global standardization of the schedule for Sunday worship services and classes. If the stake leadership in Boston had been left to execute their plans, it would have opened a Pandora's box: one local unit shortening a meeting or class time here, another eliminating elements altogether there (such as ward choirs), etc.

So you appear to be tacitly agreeing with my point that there is more involved here than merely the failure to get advance approval for what they were doing.

No, I am not tacitly agreeing with your point.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...