Bishop Bans Electronic Devices

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Rushing to judgment would seem to be also.  The guy seems to be trying to address a legitimate concern.  I don't agree with the methods.  I would bet that the ward leadership will eventually come to the conclusion that the ban does not work and try to address the problem through other means.

On it's face, it might work for a while -- except that there reportedly are many people who, rather than going to the chapel and being subject to the directive, now elect to go to the Relief Society room, where the proceedings of the sacrament meeting are piped in. That doesn't strike me as a good situation.

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Revisiting this thread, because I'm curious about how this is working out two and a half months out now. Is the ban still in place? Has the ward come to terms with it? Has the bishop shown any sign of drawing in his horns?

[Rain]

For those who needed to look up the idiom, drawing in his horns:

to act in a more careful way than you did before, especially by spending less money

Cambridge English dictionary has a similar meaning to the above.

 

to suppress or control one's feelings, esp of anger, enthusiasm, or passion b. to withdraw a previous statement c. to economize

to restrain oneself or become less belligerent; retreat:

 

I'm curious why you used that idiom. 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/10/2016 at 1:20 AM, Rain said:

For those who needed to look up the idiom, drawing in his horns:

to act in a more careful way than you did before, especially by spending less money

Cambridge English dictionary has a similar meaning to the above.

 

to suppress or control one's feelings, esp of anger, enthusiasm, or passion b. to withdraw a previous statement c. to economize

to restrain oneself or become less belligerent; retreat:

 

I'm curious why you used that idiom. 

 

 

Because I believe it applies here, and I feel that belief is confirmed after reading the definitions you provided. 

I could have said "relented," which has the same or a smiler meaning; I chose this.

I'm curious as to why you ask. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

Because it was an idiom I had never heard of before and I didn't think many others had either though this board is more cerebral than I am used to so I may be one of a few that didn't know it.

When I looked up the term I expected that it would apply better than I assumed,  but when I knew what it meant it didn't apply as well as I expected. Your first 2 questions seemed to come from a curious state. Your question with the meaning of the idiom seemed passive aggressive to me so rather than assuming that I looked for more definitions and asked for your intent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Because it was an idiom I had never heard of before and I didn't think many others had either though this board is more cerebral than I am used to so I may be one of a few that didn't know it.

 

It's possible, I suppose that it's a generational thing, or perhaps regional, but it's an expression that I've heard and read a lot throughout my life.

I notice a Google search on the expression yields about 425,000 hits.

Here's a brief but interesting essay on this figurative expression and its derivation, indicating that it extends as far back as the 16th century.

Quote

When I looked up the term I expected that it would apply better than I assumed,  but when I knew what it meant it didn't apply as well as I expected. Your first 2 questions seemed to come from a curious state. Your question with the meaning of the idiom seemed passive aggressive to me so rather than assuming that I looked for more definitions and asked for your intent. 

My use of the expression had specifically to do with the bishop's intention and was simply a way of asking whether he has relented in his zeal regarding the banning of use of electronic devices in the chapel. A move like that still seems highly irregular to me. Nothing that I know of in the Church's administrative handbooks supports it.

I wasn't being passive-aggressive. The question was quite direct.

Again, I think it's quite an apt expression for what I intended to convey, and I'm puzzled by your puzzlement over it.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

No puzzlement. Just wanted to know intent.  

[6EQUJ5]

The policy is in effect and has been a real blessing, IMO.  At the encouragement of our Stake President some other wards have taken up the policy too. 

There were complaints at first but they have fizzled out. I think folks just needed a chance to see how it would play out.  And I think most ward members have come to see the wisdom of our Bishop.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The policy is in effect and has been a real blessing, IMO.  At the encouragement of our Stake President some other wards have taken up the policy too. 

There were complaints at first but they have fizzled out. I think folks just needed a chance to see how it would play out.  And I think most ward members have come to see the wisdom of our Bishop.

What has resulted from this blessing?  Is it the meetings feel better to you?  Or....has everyone felt like they are approaching God in a better way?  Just curious what you mean by having been a real blessing? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The policy is in effect and has been a real blessing, IMO.  At the encouragement of our Stake President some other wards have taken up the policy too. 

There were complaints at first but they have fizzled out. I think folks just needed a chance to see how it would play out.  And I think most ward members have come to see the wisdom of our Bishop.

Does it still just apply to sacrament meeting? You indicated earlier, as I recall, that the bishop was considering applying it to the entire three hour block.

[Scott Lloyd]

On an internet search I found this blog post relating to this topic.

While I don't agree with everything in there, I do agree that banning of electronics at Church -- even for arguably appropriate uses, such as looking up scriptures, taking notes or hymn singing -- borders on the Pharisaical. And I'm not certain the quote there from Elder Ballard pertains to all possible uses of electronics at Church. We can all pretty much agree that texting, playing games, Facebooking, indiscriminate web surfing and taking phone calls ought not occur during sacrament meeting. That's how I understand Elder Ballard's intent.

I believe there needs to be more here in the spirit of Joseph Smith's famous statement about teaching correct principles and letting the people govern themselves. Note the statement of President Nelson in the video segment about putting away the lists and deciding for ourselves, "What sign do we want to give to God?"

This response to the blog post from one of the commenters resonates with me:
 

Quote

 

These electronics are a tool, and a tool only. The problem isn’t the electronics themselves, it’s the users and what they are surfing during the meeting. Unfortunately, many times in our Church we try to ban the tool so we don’t have to deal with the actual problem, which is poor choices in HOW it’s being used.

Asking congregants to not launch Facebook and other social media, or not play games during a sacred meeting? Absolutely. I can support that 100%. Ask me to shut it all down during the meeting? Nope. I’m using the tool wisely and appropriately and you’re just going to have to trust me on that. Teach the correct principle and then let me govern myself.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I found this poll in the online LDS LIving magazine. I don't know how old it is, because there is no date given, but the vote tallies seem to indicate most people favor allowing the electronics at church for appropriate uses.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I found this on lds.org. It is an on-line forum for tech users. The thread topic is "electronic device etiquette at church"

Though there are several opinions expressed, the consensus seems to be that there is no known official statement from the Church about proper etiquette for use of electronics at church.

[6EQUJ5]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does it still just apply to sacrament meeting? You indicated earlier, as I recall, that the bishop was considering applying it to the entire three hour block.

Officially just to sacrament meeting. But it seems that this has spilled over into other mtgs too. I don't see as many devices in SS or other mtgs as much as I used to.

[6EQUJ5]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What has resulted from this blessing? 

It feels like there is greater focus on the worship and spiritual aspects of sacrament meeting. I feel that way at least. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 9:40 AM, 6EQUJ5 said:

The policy is in effect and has been a real blessing, IMO.  At the encouragement of our Stake President some other wards have taken up the policy too. 

There were complaints at first but they have fizzled out. I think folks just needed a chance to see how it would play out.  And I think most ward members have come to see the wisdom of our Bishop.

A lack of complaints doesn't necessarily mean that people are in agreement on this policy. It could also mean that open communication and discussion is suppressed.

Quote

Officially just to sacrament meeting. But it seems that this has spilled over into other mtgs too. I don't see as many devices in SS or other mtgs as much as I used to.

This is one of the concerns I have with this kind of policy. One person's personal preference is creeping into other areas as well and becoming a part of your ward's culture. Hopefully it doesn't creep into the overall culture of the church. But that's how these kind of pharisaical teachings/policies/preferences become a part of popular Mormonism.

Why not simply allow people to manage themselves.

 

*Funny but mostly unrelated story*

This past Sunday we showed up 10 minutes before Sacrament meeting. The organist sat at the organ but didn't play. There was no prelude music. People came in and sat. Had quiet discussions as usual. The meeting starts and the bishop stands. He says, "You have all just been tested as part of a reverence experiment. Sadly, we failed."

I figured in advance what he was doing but I was shocked that he said we failed because the chapel was fairly quiet. His personal opinion about what it means to be reverent (absolute silence) before a meeting is being enforced by shame and guilt. He's trying to get everyone to conform to his personal preference. His preference isn't bad, but forcing his standard on others is a bit heavy handed.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A lack of complaints doesn't necessarily mean that people are in agreement on this policy. It could also mean that open communication and discussion is suppressed.

This is one of the concerns I have with this kind of policy. One person's personal preference is creeping into other areas as well and becoming a part of your ward's culture. Hopefully it doesn't creep into the overall culture of the church. But that's how these kind of pharisaical teachings/policies/preferences become a part of popular Mormonism.

Why not simply allow people to manage themselves.

 

*Funny but mostly unrelated story*

This past Sunday we showed up 10 minutes before Sacrament meeting. The organist sat at the organ but didn't play. There was no prelude music. People came in and sat. Had quiet discussions as usual. The meeting starts and the bishop stands. He says, "You have all just been tested as part of a reverence experiment. Sadly, we failed."

I figured in advance what he was doing but I was shocked that he said we failed because the chapel was fairly quiet. His personal opinion about what it means to be reverent (absolute silence) before a meeting is being enforced by shame and guilt. He's trying to get everyone to conform to his personal preference. His preference isn't bad, but forcing his standard on others is a bit heavy handed.

Hard to tell from this what he was trying to do, but if he had been told that the prelude music actually detracts from reverence because people talk louder to be heard above the organ playing, and if he was endeavoring to test that hypothesis, then it would indeed have failed, since people weren't any quieter than they were with the music playing.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is one of the concerns I have with this kind of policy. One person's personal preference is creeping into other areas as well and becoming a part of your ward's culture. Hopefully it doesn't creep into the overall culture of the church. But that's how these kind of pharisaical teachings/policies/preferences become a part of popular Mormonism.

Why not simply allow people to manage themselves.

 

That's my concern as well: that someone's hobby horse may become a fad that spreads willy-nilly around the Church and installs itself more-or-less Church-wide as a kind of extra-official policy that is not prescribed or directed by the general leadership of the Church. It sounds as though this is already happening in 6EQ's stake.

The blogger I linked to yesterday said he has heard of it taking hold in Oregon (far enough away for me not to be too concerned -- yet) and Utah Valley (definitely too close to me for comfort).

 

[rongo]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's my concern as well: that someone's hobby horse may become a fad that spreads willy-nilly around the Church and installs itself more-or-less Church-wide as a kind of extra-official policy that is not prescribed or directed by the general leadership of the Church. It sounds as though this is already happening in 6EQ's stake.

The blogger I linked to yesterday said he has heard of it taking hold in Oregon (far enough away for me not to be too concerned -- yet) and Utah Valley (definitely too close to me for comfort).

Scott, if your bishop or stake president personally asked you not to bring your device to church, or not to use it during church, would you do it? Or, would you argue with them about how they're not a boss over you?

My family and I have been blessed in our lives when we do what our leaders have asked us to do, even when we disagree. Example: I had a stake president who asked every member of the stake not to watch the Super Bowl. Oh, the squawking about unrighteous dominion, inappropriate counsel, etc.! 

I don't think we should just blindly do whatever we're told to do, but I take the counsel very, very seriously. And, I wouldn't reject it without "proving now herewith" and testing it. 

The squawking by some shows that this hits a little too close to home  . . . 

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Scott, if your bishop or stake president personally asked you not to bring your device to church, or not to use it during church, would you do it? Or, would you argue with them about how they're not a boss over you?

My family and I have been blessed in our lives when we do what our leaders have asked us to do, even when we disagree. Example: I had a stake president who asked every member of the stake not to watch the Super Bowl. Oh, the squawking about unrighteous dominion, inappropriate counsel, etc.! 

I don't think we should just blindly do whatever we're told to do, but I take the counsel very, very seriously. And, I wouldn't reject it without "proving now herewith" and testing it. 

This is my view as well. For better or worse Sunday services are under the Bishop's stewardship. He is called to make these decisions.  Especially when he's being backed up by the SP.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

Scott, if your bishop or stake president personally asked you not to bring your device to church, or not to use it during church, would you do it? Or, would you argue with them about how they're not a boss over you?

My family and I have been blessed in our lives when we do what our leaders have asked us to do, even when we disagree. Example: I had a stake president who asked every member of the stake not to watch the Super Bowl. Oh, the squawking about unrighteous dominion, inappropriate counsel, etc.! 

I don't think we should just blindly do whatever we're told to do, but I take the counsel very, very seriously. And, I wouldn't reject it without "proving now herewith" and testing it. 

The squawking by some shows that this hits a little too close to home  . . . 

As you said, it is "counsel", not "commandment." Just because someone is called as a bishop or stake president doesn't give them license to act like a dictator. Both examples you shared, Superbowl and the electronics issue, create an opportunity for discussion and asking a few questions is appropriate.

Communication is the lifeblood of any organization. An organization (church) that suppresses communication in the form of dissent or even questions has some major issues may need to consider whether or not it is adhering to an ethical communications contract with its members.

Edited October 13, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As you said, it is "counsel", not "commandment." Just because someone is called as a bishop or stake president doesn't give them license to act like a dictator. Both examples you shared, Superbowl and the electronics issue, create an opportunity for discussion and asking a few questions is appropriate.

Communication is the lifeblood of any organization. An organization (church) that suppresses communication in the form of dissent or even questions has some major issues may need to consider whether or not it is adhering to an ethical communications contract with its members.

You also have to "pick your battles." Electronics and Super Bowl are the wrong battle, at least for me. You have to spend your "bishop capital" carefully, or you don't have any when you need it. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

You also have to "pick your battles." Electronics and Super Bowl are the wrong battle, at least for me. You have to spend your "bishop capital" carefully, or you don't have any when you need it. 

But the battle isn't really about electronics or the Super Bowl. Those are just symptoms of a larger problem, a community in which certain people feel they have the power to dictate their personal preferences to others. It IS a breach of trust and unrighteous dominion. Personally, I think unrighteous dominion is a major issue that should be challenged often because it is often the challenge that causes the abuser to recognize the error of his approach.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But the battle isn't really about electronics or the Super Bowl. Those are just symptoms of a larger problem,.

I think the bishops in question would agree with this statement.  They would just disagree with you on what the larger problem actually is.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is my view as well. For better or worse Sunday services are under the Bishop's stewardship. He is called to make these decisions.  Especially when he's being backed up by the SP.

And when it comes to this kind of thing, my stance usually is "what do I have to lose and what do I have to gain."  Less phone use in church typically won't cost anyone anything of worth, and will typically provide greater access to the spirit (since most people do use their phones for something unchurch related at some point during the meetings) so, while it would be annoying I would probably comply.  I couldn't really justify (to myself) not complying.