"Apostasy in Armenia - Sole LDS Stake in Armenia Discontinued"

[ALarson]

I just read about this and wondered if anyone here knows more about this?

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/apostasy-in-armenia-sole-lds-stake-in.html

Here's some information from the link above:

Quote

Multiple missionaries serving in the Armenia Yerevan Mission report that last Sunday the Church discontinued the Yerevan Armenia Stake in a special stake conference. Organized in 2013, the stake has been returned to district status and all wards have been downgraded to branches. Missionaries report that the primary reason the stake was discontinued was due to improper handling of church administrative responsibilities by members and local church leaders. Many of the previous church leaders were released from their callings during the conference. Missionaries indicate that a large portion of members attending the conference, perhaps as large as one-third to one-half of those in attendance, left the conference early after the announcement was made that the stake was discontinued in protest of the decision. 

 

[ALarson]

There are some good comments below this article and I do have to wonder about using the word "Apostasy" in the title of the blog post (I just copied it for this post title here).  

I don't know if I can copy and paste some of the positive comments here, but they are worth reading through, IMO.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are some good comments below this article and I do have to wonder about using the word "Apostasy" in the title of the blog post (I just copied it for this post title here).  

I don't know if I can copy and paste some of the positive comments here, but they are worth reading through, IMO.

Here's one comment I thought that some of our non USA LDS members on this board might feel close to:  "Somewhat myopic LDS leadership has not yet learned that in some parts of the world, you just can't overlay an American yankee religion on a centuries old tradition of Orthodoxy. Armenian culture may be fairly narrow, but very deep. American culture--and with it, Mormonism--is a mile wide and a half inch deep."

Me:  Makes one wonder if the church spreads itself thin, but makes me understand even more why the need for the seventies that travel and check on these places, and the importance of that.  I'm really impressed that our church does the job it does, to operate a world run church.  

[RevTestament]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just read about this and wondered if anyone here knows more about this?

Personally, I know nothing about this, but will provide a seemingly trustworthy link which seems to provide some clues. 

http://elderethanbradshaw.blogspot.in

Quote

The most important callings that they wanted to focus on is the ward clerk, so that none of this sketchy business goes on again. So they decided to have some of the missionaries serve as clerks for the branches, and of course, I got called to serve as the branch clerk for Vanadzor.

So doesn't really seem like "apostasy" but that maybe some misappropriation of money going on. Perhaps the church noticed a drop in tithing money so investigated. At this point we can't be certain.

It seems the missionaries are staying mostly mum about it, but since the keys are being placed back with the Mission pres, it seems the above could be the likely scenario. 

Perhaps some joined in the hopes of siphoning money. Corruption is generally bad in Armenia. "The United Nations Development Programme in Armenia views corruption in Armenia as 'a serious challenge to its development.'" 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Personally, I know nothing about this, but will provide a seemingly trustworthy link which seems to provide some clues. 

http://elderethanbradshaw.blogspot.in

So doesn't really seem like "apostasy" but that maybe some misappropriation of money going on. Perhaps the church noticed a drop in tithing money so investigated. At this point we can't be certain.

It seems the missionaries are staying mostly mum about it, but since the keys are being placed back with the Mission pres, it seems the above could be the likely scenario. 

Perhaps some joined in the hopes of siphoning money. Corruption is generally bad in Armenia. "The United Nations Development Programme in Armenia views corruption in Armenia as 'a serious challenge to its development.'" 

Yes, I agree.

This is from another missionary blog:

http://skippertakesarmenia.blogspot.co.uk/

Quote

Sunday was Stake Conference, this is all I'm talking about so hold on tight, Elder Klebingat and Elder Kacher from the Seventy came.  Elder Klebingat got up first and announced that the Stake was converted to a district, the President of the Stake was released and the keys are now with President Carlson.  A district just means that it's under the direction of the Mission Presidency instead of the members in Armenia.  As soon as the changes were announced, One third of the people got up and walked out.  My heart broke, just like the hosts in heaven 1/3 walked out. I had to watch 1/3 of my brothers and sisters walk out of that building and I'm willing to bet that the feeling I felt was somewhat after the manner that I felt when one third of God's children walked out after the council in heaven.  This time some may come back, but for some that could be the last time they come to church in this life.  I'm still recovering a bit...

 

[Calm]

In Russia, we were told there were a number of leaders that left when they were released because they interpreted their callings as part of their status and a release as being equivalent to being fired.  IOW, they were insulted.  In one case, the bishop leaving basically took the whole ward with him and set up his own church, iirc. Different culture,different understanding.  I don't know how that was handled and if realizing this is how it is done worldwide has made a difference to local members.

[USU78]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

In Russia, we were told there were a number of leaders that left when they were released because they interpreted their callings as part of their status and a release as being equivalent to being fired.  IOW, they were insulted.  In one case, the bishop leaving basically took the whole ward with him and set up his own church, iirc. Different culture,different understanding.  I don't know how that was handled and if realizing this is how it is done worldwide has made a difference to local members.

My father was released from being elder's quorum president over the pulpit at ward conference:  the grandson of a seventy, he spent the next 10-20 years largely inactive, though he insisted that his children keep going.  He was never antagonistic, just hurt and betrayed, as he saw it.

I hope and expect the actual leaders who were actualy released were given a head's up prior to the public meeting.  And that none of them were among the ca 1/3.

[stemelbow]

SOunds like a difficult situation. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My father was released from being elder's quorum president over the pulpit at ward conference:  the grandson of a seventy, he spent the next 10-20 years largely inactive, though he insisted that his children keep going.  He was never antagonistic, just hurt and betrayed, as he saw it.

I hope and expect the actual leaders who were actualy released were given a head's up prior to the public meeting.  And that none of them were among the ca 1/3.

I got a surprise relaease from the pulpit. Can't remember if it was when I got released from Young men's or what.  But just before that release my bishop got all upset with me and said I was not his brother in the gospel, so I figured that's why he didn't want to tell me before hand.  I think that's the best way to get released--just have them announce it without notice. 

[ALarson]

Here's some information from cumorah.com on this area:

http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_country_reports&story_id=29

This part is interesting (I'm not sure when this was posted):

Quote

 

Member Activity and Convert Retention

Member activity rates have decreased over the past decade as mostconverts have not been retained.  Missionaries report that many branches have a small, yet organized, leadership but have been overwhelmed with the large numbers of new converts.  Leadership was initially developed rapidly in the 1990s, which may indicate that converts in the 2000s have been less able to integrate into established congregations.  Many active members emigrate, especially young people, lessening local resources in addressing and preventing convert attrition.

 

The Armenia Yerevan Mission has been the top-baptizing mission in the Europe East Area since the mid-2000s.  However, much of this nominal growth has not been reflected in active membership. For several years, a policy was in place that missionaries were not allowed to teach a second discussion to investigators who did not accept the baptismal commitment on the first discussion. While the intent of this policy was ostensibly to increase baptisms and to focus missionary time on receptive investigators, it fueled patterns of very low convert retention in which investigators were rushed to baptism without first establishing positive gospel habits and overcoming substance abuse and other difficulties. There are also serious theological questions about how investigators were expected to gain a testimony based on a single missionary encounter without adequate opportunity to read, pray, study, and investigate the church. Sincere, more potentially committed investigators may have been driven off by such high-pressure approaches.

 

In 2008, President Ronald Dunn reversed the policies of his predecessor and emphasized the need for quality pre-baptismal preparation of new converts, leading to substantially higher retention rates.  In 2009, missionaries reported that the average convert attended church for at least six weeks before baptism, and one-year convert retention had increased to over 50%. Convert retention may increase further as higher standards become consistently enforced. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

I am sure it is difficult for new bishops in different cultures to understand the welfare system and not just start writing checks to people and causes which seem "worthy".

I have seen more than once cultural misunderstandings about church welfare funds.  Also I imagine that in former socialist countries the "handout" is more the rule than the idea that service should also be accompany receipt of precious church funds.   Probably the idea that "rich Americans" are providing funds to "us poor people" figure into it.

I have absolutely no evidence for about that last part- total speculation.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

"As soon as the changes were announced, One third of the people got up and walked out.  My heart broke, just like the hosts in heaven 1/3 walked out. I had to watch 1/3 of my brothers and sisters walk out of that building and I'm willing to bet that the feeling I felt was somewhat after the manner that I felt when one third of God's children walked out after the council in heaven.  This time some may come back, but for some that could be the last time they come to church in this life.  I'm still recovering a bit..."

This is very sad to read, I can't imagine how hard that would be for a missionary who is serving there to experience 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

I just read about this and wondered if anyone here knows more about this?

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/apostasy-in-armenia-sole-lds-stake-in.html

Here's some information from the link above:

Reminiscent of the Third Convention in Mexico:  https://books.google.com/books?id=0dSoCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=elisa+pulido,+third+convention&source=bl&ots=qz5jdKDDo9&sig=0iro9KsHUPCtz3YJjSszbmdlTHY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioubP_1sHMAhUW02MKHSobA9QQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=elisa pulido%2C third convention&f=false .

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am sure it is difficult for new bishops in different cultures to understand the welfare system and not just start writing checks to people and causes which seem "worthy".

I have seen more than once cultural misunderstandings about church welfare funds.  Also I imagine that in former socialist countries the "handout" is more the rule than the idea that service should also be accompany receipt of precious church funds.   Probably the idea that "rich Americans" are providing funds to "us poor people" figure into it.

I have absolutely no evidence for about that last part- total speculation.

Outside of Utah, perhaps there is less habit to integrate church lay service into personal and family life. We live 30 minutes away from most members....it's not easy for the ward to find members to make the trek to visit us or other far-off families.Gas is also highly taxed and expensive, making travel more prohibitive than in the US.

Culturally,  here we have people who are used to 5 weeks vacation, state welfare, and more. And still the clergy is notpaid, and certainly not formally trained in therapy, psychology, theology, or necessarily anything.

So, what happens when a bishop is confronted with an untenable-for-him problem? You cannot easily predict, probably,  but you can again look at his resources and that checkbook may look more useful if his experience and leadership skills are not so developed.

This may be a sample of what kind of cultural differences change the paradigm of Church.

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Outside of Utah, perhaps there is less habit to integrate church lay service into personal and family life. We live 30 minutes away from most members....it's not easy for the ward to find members to make the trek to visit us or other far-off families.Gas is also highly taxed and expensive, making travel more prohibitive than in the US.

Culturally,  here we have people who are used to 5 weeks vacation, state welfare, and more. And still the clergy is notpaid, and certainly not formally trained in therapy, psychology, theology, or necessarily anything.

So, what happens when a bishop is confronted with an untenable-for-him problem? You cannot easily predict, probably,  but you can again look at his resources and that checkbook may look more useful if his experience and leadership skills are not so developed.

This may be a sample of what kind of cultural differences change the paradigm of Church.

I have seen such things happen locally, and if they can happen in California, how much more likely is it in Armenia?   To me the answer is clear- much more likely.

[sdc999]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am sure it is difficult for new bishops in different cultures to understand the welfare system and not just start writing checks to people and causes which seem "worthy".

I have seen more than once cultural misunderstandings about church welfare funds.  Also I imagine that in former socialist countries the "handout" is more the rule than the idea that service should also be accompany receipt of precious church funds.   Probably the idea that "rich Americans" are providing funds to "us poor people" figure into it.

I have absolutely no evidence for about that last part- total speculation.

I once worked for a company that announced that growth would cease for at least one year and maybe two.  Those that were next in line to be in leadership positions were disgruntled at best.  The CEO of the company was extremely wise.  They had built a great reputation as being the best and knew that expansion, without credible trained representation, would result in a negative outcome.  After taking a two year break on expansion and focusing on training up those they had, they have since doubled in size and continue to have great success.  

There are those who hate classifying the church or any church as a business but it is.  That is why there are professional accounting firms, pr departments, lawyers, etc.   Whomever was in charge of that area in the "rapid growth - low retention" time was a terrible leader.  It's all about the numbers seemed to be the focus.  This has now manifested itself as a failed endeavor.  Yes, the church will start over with the basics and hopefully do a better job this time.  One of the things they really need to do though is to get with these leaders and apologize.  They were put into positions that, as evidenced, they were bound to fail.  This can be detrimental to one's faith and confidence.  Many of the comments from this topic speak of members who leave or become inactive after being released.  A release as a result of being ineffective  could definitely shake someone's faith.      

[ERMD]

I have a friend who served as mission president in Colombia several years ago.  During a branch sacrament meeting, women were seated at the sacrament table to prepare and bless the sacrament.  He advised the branch president that sisters do not hold the priesthood and cannot perform the ordinance.

Several months later he returned, and sisters again were at the sacrament table.  He asked the branch president why they were there, and he replied, "I gave them the priesthood."

 

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by ERMD

[ERMD]

35 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

I once worked for a company that announced that growth would cease for at least one year and maybe two.  Those that were next in line to be in leadership positions were disgruntled at best.  The CEO of the company was extremely wise.  They had built a great reputation as being the best and knew that expansion, without credible trained representation, would result in a negative outcome.  After taking a two year break on expansion and focusing on training up those they had, they have since doubled in size and continue to have great success.  

There are those who hate classifying the church or any church as a business but it is.  That is why there are professional accounting firms, pr departments, lawyers, etc.   Whomever was in charge of that area in the "rapid growth - low retention" time was a terrible leader.  It's all about the numbers seemed to be the focus.  This has now manifested itself as a failed endeavor.  Yes, the church will start over with the basics and hopefully do a better job this time.  One of the things they really need to do though is to get with these leaders and apologize.  They were put into positions that, as evidenced, they were bound to fail.  This can be detrimental to one's faith and confidence.  Many of the comments from this topic speak of members who leave or become inactive after being released.  A release as a result of being ineffective  could definitely shake someone's faith.      

There are a lot of assumptions being made here.

[ALarson]

Here's more information:

Quote

This marks one of the few times in LDS Church history that the Church has discontinued a stake in a nation where only one stake previously operated. Most recently, the Church discontinued its sole stake in Monrovia, Liberia in 2007 due to similar problems as reported in Armenia.   The news of the stake discontinuation in Armenia is disappointing and points to chronic problems with a lack of "real growth" and spiritual maturity among many members in the region. The Church in Eastern Europe has experienced similar problems with local members and church leaders becoming inactive after similar administrative changes have been made. It appears that the Church has yet to adequately address the cultural challenge of retaining church leaders in the region after they are released from a calling, or properly rectifying problems with church leaders not following policies for local church administration.

 

And here's the link to when this stake in Armenia was formed (2013):

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-nelson-helps-form-first-stake-in-armenia?lang=eng

[halconero]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

I have a friend who served as mission president in Columbia several years ago.  During a branch sacrament meeting, women were seated at the sacrament table to prepare and bless the sacrament.  He advised the branch president that sisters do not hold the priesthood and cannot perform the ordinance.

Several months later he returned, and sisters again were at the sacrament table.  He asked the branch president why they were there, and he replied, "I gave them the priesthood."

 

 

Sorry to tell you this but...

1) It's Colombia, not Columbia

&

2) This is one of those mission myths that gets passed around. I've heard of everyone from President Hinckley to President Packer, and now your friend being the one to witness this. There's probably some basis in some branch somewhere long ago...but I think your friend might have just thrown his name into the Mormon folklore pot.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, halconero said:

Sorry to tell you this but...

1) It's Colombia, not Columbia

&

2) This is one of those mission myths that gets passed around. I've heard of everyone from President Hinckley to President Packer, and now your friend being the one to witness this. There's probably some basis in some branch somewhere long ago...but I think your friend might have just thrown his name into the Mormon folklore pot.

My 4 year old daughter serves the sacrament every week. No one complains.  There's usually a gaping space between our family and the single sister who sits on the same row and my daughter loves to carry it down and hand it off.  It's really no different than the boys doing it.  It seems silly that we require only little boys who've been given the Aaronic priesthood as being allowed to carry treys from row to row while we all pass it to each other anyway. 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

My 4 year old daughter serves the sacrament every week. No one complains.  There's usually a gaping space between our family and the single sister who sits on the same row and my daughter loves to carry it down and hand it off.  It's really no different than the boys doing it.  It seems silly that we require only little boys who've been given the Aaronic priesthood as being allowed to carry treys from row to row while we all pass it to each other anyway. 

OK, let's get technical.  

It is the priesthood who "receives" the sacrament after it has been blessed.  They then "administer" it to the congregation as part of their priesthood duties.  There can be flexibility in exactly HOW that is done.  Obviously they do not need to administer it individually.  It is just a matter of convenience that they physically carry it from row to row, but that is the call of the presiding priesthood.  (PS They don't have to hold their hands behind their back)

They then return it to the sacrament table.

I just wanted to make sure that you will not lose your testimony over this.

Edited May 5, 2016 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

 

I just wanted to make sure that you will not lose your testimony over this.

Well shoot I was hoping it was going to provide me an out.  Guess not.

[jkwilliams]

My recent trip to Armenia is purely coincidental.

[Thinking]

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps some joined in the hopes of siphoning money.

When I served in Peru, a woman asked me "If I join your church, can I get welfare?"