Bishop Bans Electronic Devices

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

I'm sure they would. They would see the lack of complete compliance and absolute blind obedience as my problem. I admit. I have a problem believing that those are noble virtues. Still, my lack of blind obedience effects me. A leader's unrighteous dominion effects many negatively in the name of God.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm sure they would. They would see the lack of complete compliance and absolute blind obedience as my problem. 

No, that's not what i'm talking about.  I'm guessing they see the larger problem as a lack of keeping the Sabbath day holy, for example, and their requests as attempts to help their congregations keep that very important commandment.

Why do you have to give such awful motives to people who do things you disagree with?  

[maklelan]

9 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?

I can't speak for Scott, but I would respectfully point out to the bishop or stake president that all Church publications, including the scriptures, are currently designed and intended primarily for digital consumption, and that the Church wants members to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible to engage with their digital publishing platforms. This is the reason they suggested members not worry about going and buying new hardcopies of the scriptures, and updates are made to Church publications on their digital platforms sometimes literally years before they find their way into print. In light of that, attempting to banish devices can only be understood as a misguided hacking away at the leaves of a problem with a much different root that actually extends into the organization and administration of Church meetings. If a portion of the membership is just bored to tears in sacrament meeting or Sunday School, instead of cracking a whip over their heads and telling them they're not allowed to bring mobile phones (which simply does not help), try to figure out a way to help them want to engage. I can tell you that at Church headquarters one of the goals of the new integrated curriculum is precisely to help people be more engaged. Some people want to find a silver lining in misguided hacking away at the leaves of a problem, and that's fine, but asserting over and against sincere concerns that blind obedience leads to blessings from which the unrighteous just won't get to benefit doesn't help anyone grow in the gospel. It's just identity politics that draws a line of exclusion around those people who are bored to tears through no fault of their own. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by maklelan

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, that's not what i'm talking about.  I'm guessing they see the larger problem as a lack of keeping the Sabbath day holy, for example, and their requests as attempts to help their congregations keep that very important commandment.

Why do you have to give such awful motives to people who do things you disagree with?  

Your statement was unclear so I had to guess what you meant. And I don't know that I'm assigning "awful motives". I've been in enough meetings that I know the issue of "sustaining leaders" is a high priority item for many leaders. The lack of sustaining leaders in all things is viewed as the road to apostasy. So my comment isn't really a huge leap. Sorry you were offended by it.

If the Sabbath Day is their main concern, then why choose only the Super Bowl? Why not cut out all TV and music and have every member commit to that instead of banning 1 game. What are the odds many families obeyed the Super Bowl rule and turned on a movie or TV show instead? So much for focusing on the Sabbath day.

Besides, teaching principles and letting people govern themselves is much more effective than making up new pharisaical commandments.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your statement was unclear so I had to guess what you meant. And I don't know that I'm assigning "awful motives". I've been in enough meetings that I know the issue of "sustaining leaders" is a high priority item for many leaders. The lack of sustaining leaders in all things is viewed as the road to apostasy. So my comment isn't really a huge leap. Sorry you were offended by it.

It didn't offend me, so much as it made me question the merit of the post in general, since you seemed to want to see the actions of others in the worst possible light.  If someone said that all you cared about was "complete compliance and blind obedience" it seems obvious that you would take issue with that.

Quote

If the Sabbath Day is their main concern, then why choose only the Super Bowl? Why not cut out all TV and music and have every member commit to that instead of banning 1 game. What are the odds many families obeyed the Super Bowl rule and turned on a movie or TV show instead? So much for focusing on the Sabbath day.

Because that's usually how it works, right?  It's a basic goal setting and personal improvement technique that we've all been taught since we were children. 

When we want our kids to improve, we ask them to do one or two things better.   We don't give them a list of 25 things they are doing wrong and as them to fix them all at once.  When we want ourselves to improve, we pick one or two spots to work on.  We don't try to fix everything that is wrong with us all at once because it's a prescription for failure.  When bosses want their employees to improve they give them one or two challenges to work on-preferably something that is very measurable and where success is instantly recognizable and easily defined.  

Quote

Besides, teaching principles and letting people govern themselves is much more effective than making up new pharisaical commandments.

Are you under the impression that the people in these bishops' wards were not in charge of governing themselves?  It seems to me they were given counsel and then left to their own devices on whether or not they would follow it.  

[6EQUJ5]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Do you believe movie theater managers are dictating their personal preferences to others by disallowing the use of cell phones?  Is this "unrighteous dominion?"

As I said earlier, audio is being piped to the RS room so those who want to use their phones can.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 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  . . . 

Thing is, Rongo, we know from past observation that local-unit Church leaders occasionally do go off the rails in what they require of the Saints under their watch care.

Last year, a stake in Boston was intending to shorten the three-hour block of Sunday worship services and classes to two hours and to cut out "extra" programs such as ward choirs. Literally within hours of this initiative surfacing in the social and mass media, it was shut down by leaders at Church headquarters and the word went out that the "well-intentioned" stake president now understood this was contrary to Church guidelines.

A few years ago, in a Church satellite leadership training broadcast, President Thomas S. Monson related an incident that occurred when he was a bishop. A man was to be ordained to a priesthood office during a priesthood meeting. The high councilor conducting the ordination said he wanted the man to sit facing the direction of the temple while the ordinance was being performed. Bishop Monson recognized this as being contrary to established procedure, and he said, "In this ward, we have the person being ordained sit facing the congregation."

An extreme example is what happened in southern Utah in 1857 when, under the command of local Church leaders, townspeople perpetrated the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Direction had been  sought from Brigham Young, but tragically, his directive not to meddle with the emigrants arrived too late to stop this horrific event.

You acknowledged that you "don't think we should just blindly do whatever we're told to do." I agree with you there. So what's the remedy? I say it's to appeal up the line to higher authority, first to the stake president, then the area presidency and ultimately to the General Authorities in Salt Lake, if the matter warrants it. Would you regard such appeal as "squawking"?

Would such an appeal have resulted in nullification of the Boston stake leadership's endeavor to shorten the meeting block? Obviously it would, since that very thing happened and with dizzying rapidity once the general Church leaders got wind of it.

Would it have happened in the case of Mountain Meadows? Well, actually it did, but word came too late to do any good.

What if Bishop Monson had had to make an appeal of the high councilor's directive? Well, he probably would have prevailed, since, much later, as President Monson, he used that incident to illustrate what local leaders ought not be doing.

Quote

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?

I've already indicated earlier in this thread what I would do. I would probably take the matter up the line to higher authority. (You implied that you regard such behavior as "squawking".)

Blessedly, I haven't had to deal with that yet. The hope that I never do, that this thing doesn't become a fad that propagates itself throughout the Church outside of normal priesthood lines of communication and directive, is what motivates me to be so vocal now in speaking against it.

We've seen such fads come and go.

Many years ago, when I was still young and single but had started my career and was living on my own, I visited my elderly parents one night to find them sitting in dim candlelight in their front room. Their bishop that day in sacrament meeting had announced from the pulpit that there was a mock disaster going on in the ward boundaries, and everyone was expected to live off their food storage and whatever emergency supplies they had on hand. I don't recall how long the period was that they were supposed to do this; perhaps a week. The purpose, I suppose, was to impress upon people's minds the importance of emergency preparedness. But I clearly remember thinking at the time, as I saw the hardship this was working on my parents, who were anxious to be faithful and obedient: Something about this scenario strikes me as not quite right.

Later, the word came out through priesthood channels that this sort of thing, which was never an official Church initiative to begin with, was not to be undertaken anymore. Did this result from grassroots outcry? Probably. Would it have come sooner if the outcry had been stronger? Maybe.

I take counsel seriously as well. And when it's not something sustained by the handbooks or by past instruction from general Church leaders, I will, if I see the need, seek direction from higher authority.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours 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. 

Bishops should choose their battles as well.

And they ought not use a bazooka to take out a wasp's nest. Not only is it overkill, it can cause collateral damage in the process. We have no real way of knowing what ill will this directive has caused among ward members who use their electronic devices at church responsibly and have now been inconvenienced by an ill-advised endeavor to deal with the errant actions of a few.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[6EQUJ5]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And they ought not use a bazooka to take out a wasp's nest. Not only is it overkill, it can cause collateral damage in the process. We have no real way of knowing what ill will this directive has caused among ward members who use their electronic devices at church responsibly and have now been inconvenienced by an ill-advised endeavor to deal with the errant actions of a few.

But the Bishop's decision to ban these devices has brought great blessings to our meetings.

Honestly I find your disrespect and contempt for my priesthood leader a little offensive.  That you would show such little regard for a Bishop is surprising.  Especially since he has been backed up 100% by the Spirit and 100% by the Stake.

[maklelan]

2 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

But the Bishop's decision to ban these devices has brought great blessings to our meetings.

And people used to say that the Priesthood ban brought great blessings to African members of the Church. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me their thoughtless obedience to an irrational demand "brought great blessings," I'd live in a much nicer house.

Quote

Honestly I find your disrespect and contempt for my priesthood leader a little offensive.  That you would show such little regard for a Bishop is surprising.  Especially since he has been backed up 100% by the Spirit and 100% by the Stake.

Before we were married, my wife was told by a young man that his revelation about needing to marry him was backed up 100% by the Spirit as well. Regarding the "Stake," if you mean stake leadership, that's great, but if you mean 100% of the membership of the stake, you're simply wrong. Also, as I have tried to make clear, the bishop's demand flatly undermines and obstructs the Church's own publishing program for the scriptures and for everything else intended for use during Church meetings.

[6EQUJ5]

26 minutes ago, maklelan said:

And people used to say that the Priesthood ban brought great blessings to African members of the Church. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me their thoughtless obedience to an irrational demand "brought great blessings," I'd live in a much nicer house.

So you consider my prayerful consideration of our Bishop's counsel to be "thoughtless obedience."  Nice.

Quote

Before we were married, my wife was told by a young man that his revelation about needing to marry him was backed up 100% by the Spirit as well. Regarding the "Stake," if you mean stake leadership, that's great, but if you mean 100% of the membership of the stake, you're simply wrong. Also, as I have tried to make clear, the bishop's demand flatly undermines and obstructs the Church's own publishing program for the scriptures and for everything else intended for use during Church meetings.

You are comparing the "inspiration" of a hormone-fueled young man to the spiritual direction given not only to my Bishop, but also confirmed by the Stake Presidency?  That's absurd.

But I guess I'm not surprised that you don't see the difference given your position on other matters.

[maklelan]

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

So you consider my prayerful consideration of our Bishop's counsel to be "thoughtless obedience."  Nice.

That's fair, but I reviewed the whole thread and don't see any place where you suggested prayer had anything to do with your ultimate conversion to the bishop's will. You expressed concerns until you saw that sacrament was much more peaceful when you just removed all the troublemakers. You evidently see this as spiritual confirmation of the inspiration of his counsel. I see it as the inevitable product of making people with rowdier kids go sit in another room so they don't bother you. I also see the tacit suggestion that a quiet person's enjoyment of a quiet sacrament meeting is more important than the inclusion of a family with rowdy kids who might be made quieter with a mobile app as a quite significant and troubling marginalization. The problem was solved, though, even if the person wasn't loved.

Quote

You are comparing the "inspiration" of a hormone-fueled young man to the spiritual direction given not only to my Bishop, but also confirmed by the Stake Presidency?  That's absurd.

But I guess I'm not surprised that you don't see the difference given your position on other matters.

I'm comparing someone trying to use "spiritual direction" as leverage to get what they want to a person trying to use "spiritual direction" as leverage to get what they want. And I'm curious; on what "other matters" do I hold positions you find absurd? Please be specific. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

But the Bishop's decision to ban these devices has brought great blessings to our meetings.

I'm afraid I'm seeing a bit of the post hoc fallacy here. We as onlookers have no way of knowing what things were like in your ward before the ban was put in place. Or perhaps there are other measures that were instituted that resulted in the "great blessings" to the meetings. Indeed, the blessings might be in spite of rather than because of the micromanaging of people's habits and preferences with regard to use of electronics. There's no way to tell, really.
 

Quote

Honestly I find your disrespect and contempt for my priesthood leader a little offensive.  That you would show such little regard for a Bishop is surprising.

I don't know your bishop. I don't know the location of your ward or even the region of the country it's in. I'm not disrespecting him. I'm expressing opposition to a non-standard, extra-official mandate and hoping it doesn't begin to spread across the Church absent the express direction of the general Church leadership. I would do the same even if the mandate were issued by someone I knew well and regarded highly. I just think it bad policy. That's the long and the short of it.

And I remind you it was you who raised this matter for discussion by starting a thread about it. If you cannot abide a variety of opinion on it, perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

Quote

Especially since he has been backed up 100% by the Spirit and 100% by the Stake.

If by "the stake," you mean the stake leadership, I'm thinking the leadership of the stake in Boston was 100 percent behind the initiative last year to cut the length of the meeting block to two hours -- right up to the time they were informed by those in authority that what they intended to do was contrary to Church guidelines.

As for it being "backed up 100 percent by the Spirit," I wonder how conducive it is to feeling the Spirit for those who must face the choice of either being exiled to overflow areas of the meetinghouse or foregoing the appropriate use of electronic readers for, say, having the scriptures and their annotations and markings readily available to them as well as the other rich content of the Church's "Gospel Library" app.

I find the sacrament meetings in my ward to be generally high in spirituality. And we have no ban on electronic devices.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/13/2016 at 0:29 PM, 6EQUJ5 said:

Do you believe movie theater managers are dictating their personal preferences to others by disallowing the use of cell phones?  Is this "unrighteous dominion?"

 

I believe theater managers do it out of consideration for theater-goers, paying customers, who are distracted by ringing cell phones or by the light emanating from an electronic device in a darkened theater.

I would have absolutely no objection to people at church being told to silence their cell phones during a church meeting. That is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

And if the circumstances were the same at church as they are in a theater -- that is, if, say, the chapel were darkened to facilitate the viewing of a projected image on a large screen -- I think it would be perfectly reasonable as well to expect people not to turn on their devices.

It's rather a different situation, though, at church. There is no darkened room, and no one should reasonably feel inconvenienced or offended by someone else making appropriate use of an electronic device, such as looking up a scripture reference to focus the mind while the sacrament is being passed or following along with the congregational hymn singing or making a calendar entry for the next ward temple night or using the "LDS Tools" app to fix in one's mind where a new move-in family lives so one can take them a welcome-to-the-ward treat.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, maklelan said:

And people used to say that the Priesthood ban brought great blessings to African members of the Church. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me their thoughtless obedience to an irrational demand "brought great blessings," I'd live in a much nicer house.

Before we were married, my wife was told by a young man that his revelation about needing to marry him was backed up 100% by the Spirit as well. Regarding the "Stake," if you mean stake leadership, that's great, but if you mean 100% of the membership of the stake, you're simply wrong. Also, as I have tried to make clear, the bishop's demand flatly undermines and obstructs the Church's own publishing program for the scriptures and for everything else intended for use during Church meetings.

Your posts have gotten me thinking. 

The article of faith states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

it has been said that we believe in an open canon. But adding to the canon can as a practical matter be hindered by the logistics of having to revise the editions of the scriptures to include new content, print and publish them and then expect everybody to go out and acquire the latest editions. 

Should we see a day when canonical revelation will flow to us with much greater frequency -- "many great and important things" as it were -- the way will have been prepared with the publication of scriptures in digital format that can be quickly, easily and inexpensively updated and disseminated to the Church at large. For this to happen, we will have to wean ourselves from our hard copy scripture versions. This will not be facilitated by short-sighted leaders who forbid the Saints from studying and teaching from God's word in digital format on computer devices. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For this to happen, we will have to wean ourselves from our hard copy scripture versions. 

Why? 

You're apoplectic about some leaders not wanting electronic devices at church. Yet, you think we will "have" to "wean ourselves from our hard copy scripture versions." 

Why would anyone have to "wean themselves" off of paper scriptures. Can't they enjoy their preference as much as you enjoy yours?

Isn't that trampling on my rights and preferences to have paper scriptures at least as much as you feel imposed on by the suggestion that paper scriptures ought to be used at church? 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This will not be facilitated by short-sighted leaders who forbid the Saints from studying and teaching from God's word in digital format on computer devices. 

You're exaggerating for effect here (at least I hope you are). Nobody, let alone the bishop being discussed, has "forbid[den]" anyone "from studying and teaching from God's word in digital format on computer devices." As I understand it, the request applied only to sacrament meeting, not classes, and certainly not at home or elsewhere.

While your suggestion appears to me to envision a time when paper scriptures will no longer be used at all in the Church, except as curiosities or relics. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Why? 

You're apoplectic about some leaders not wanting electronic devices at church. Yet, you think we will "have" to "wean ourselves from our hard copy scripture versions." 

Why would anyone have to "wean themselves" off of paper scriptures. Can't they enjoy their preference as much as you enjoy yours?

Isn't that trampling on my rights and preferences to have paper scriptures at least as much as you feel imposed on by the suggestion that paper scriptures ought to be used at church? 

I didn't mean to suggest they ought not be used at church. Yes, of course it's a matter of personal preference. 

I was referring more to the attitude that the digital versions should not be used at all -- to the point that one begins to forbid their use, be it at church or elsewhere. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

You're exaggerating for effect here (at least I hope you are). Nobody, let alone the bishop being discussed, has "forbid[den]" anyone "from studying and teaching from God's word in digital format on computer devices." As I understand it, the request applied only to sacrament meeting, not classes, and certainly not at home or elsewhere.

While your suggestion appears to me to envision a time when paper scriptures will no longer be used at all in the Church, except as curiosities or relics. 

As I indicated, I'm looking ahead to a possible future day -- suggested by the article of faith about God revealing "many great and important things" -- when hard copy becomes a less-than-efficient means of getting new canonical scripture into the hands of the people by reason of the frequency with which it appears. 

I'm going off of what Maklelan says about scriptures and other publications of the Church being designed today primarily for digital consumption. Maklelan, as I recall, is in a position to know because of his employment. 

Not long after the latest editions of the scriptures came out with the many alterations to the chapter headings and other study aids, I was in my gospel doctrine class. The teacher asked for someone to read the heading to one of the D&C versions. I volunteered, using my iPod touch and thus accessing the latest version on lds.org and the Gospel Library app. The teacher was alert enough to recognize and explain to the class that I was reading from the newest edition of the scriptures and that's why it differed from what some of them were seeing. I had the up-to-the-minute version; those relying on hard copy did not. 

Finally, yes it's true the bishop here under discussion applied the ban only to sacrament meeting. But it was stated in the OP that he was thinking of applying it to the other meetings in the three-hour block as well.

Quote

He also mentioned that this ban may be extended to all Sunday meetings, and not just those held in the chapel as he's received a number of complaints from teachers and others.

If he does, or if local leaders elsewhere did it, that would amount to doing what Maklelan identified as undercutting or undermining the work of the Church in its publication of the scriptures and other published material.  Yes, one can still get it at home. But it strikes me as important to have the latest content at church too, where the word of God is being imparted and discussed and where people are being instructed in the doctrines and precepts of the gospel. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[DrClump]

On 6/23/2016 at 4:37 PM, 6EQUJ5 said:

This past Sunday our Bishop announced that electronic devices such as phones and tablets would no longer be allowed in the chapel.  He said that these devices detract from the Spirit of Sunday meetings and that using these devices in the Chapel was disrespectful.  He also mentioned that this ban may be extended to all Sunday meetings, and not just those held in the chapel as he's received a number of complaints from teachers and others.

I don't know of another ward with this policy and other members of my Stake told me their bishops havent said anything about it so I don't this this is a Stake-wide thing.

Has anyone else seen this in their wards or stakes?  

I'm torn.  I love having my iPad with all of the scriptures and hymns in one place that is easy to search and mark up.  But I also see a a handful of ward members playing games and even watching videos so I understand what the bishop is trying to do.

Q

 

I was just released as Bishop and I would never force members to do this. Honestly, do you think that these members are going to start paying attention if you take their phones away? Um, no. You can't force the spirit on someone. I always had my iPad and phone with me on the stand. I didn't use them during the administration of the sacrament, but before and after I usually had them out taking notes, responding to the Stake President's text, asking my Ex. Secretary to talk to someone after the meeting before they ran off, etc.. Some Bishops just go way too far. Sorry, but I wouldn't be upholding this policy. 

[Jeanne]

I still stand all amazed.  I understand what members are going through in a way...but to have conversations on this board about pioneers trekking to Utah..handcart people...and the persicution of Saints..I find it funny that one cannot go 90 minutes without an electronic device. 

[ksfisher]

On 10/14/2016 at 11:20 PM, rongo said:

Why? 

You're apoplectic about some leaders not wanting electronic devices at church. Yet, you think we will "have" to "wean ourselves from our hard copy scripture versions." 

Why would anyone have to "wean themselves" off of paper scriptures. Can't they enjoy their preference as much as you enjoy yours?

Isn't that trampling on my rights and preferences to have paper scriptures at least as much as you feel imposed on by the suggestion that paper scriptures ought to be used at church? 

I wonder if there were similar conversations when the church switched from stone tablets to papyrus?

[cinepro]

 

On 10/14/2016 at 10:05 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Your posts have gotten me thinking. 

The article of faith states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

it has been said that we believe in an open canon. But adding to the canon can as a practical matter be hindered by the logistics of having to revise the editions of the scriptures to include new content, print and publish them and then expect everybody to go out and acquire the latest editions. 

Should we see a day when canonical revelation will flow to us with much greater frequency -- "many great and important things" as it were -- the way will have been prepared with the publication of scriptures in digital format that can be quickly, easily and inexpensively updated and disseminated to the Church at large. For this to happen, we will have to wean ourselves from our hard copy scripture versions. This will not be facilitated by short-sighted leaders who forbid the Saints from studying and teaching from God's word in digital format on computer devices. 

Just so I'm clear, the guy who works for a daily newspaper is forgetting that scriptural updates used to be distributed via newspaper ?  There may be many good reasons there hasn't been an addition to the canon since 1978, but I don't think it's because God is waiting for everyone to have iPads.

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I still stand all amazed.  I understand what members are going through in a way...but to have conversations on this board about pioneers trekking to Utah..handcart people...and the persicution of Saints..I find it funny that one cannot go 90 minutes without an electronic device. 

There's no question that trekking across the country is much harder than putting away electronic devices for an hour. But that's not the point. There's no real purpose in comparing the two.

I can go 90 minutes without a device, but why? Why should I go without? Is there a purpose beyond being obedient to the whim of a leader? Not really. Leadership in the church, whether at the local or general level don't seem accustomed to answering the question of "why"? A real leader will explain, invite, and persuade, not dictate.

So I'm perfectly willing to go without for 90 minutes if the leader can explain why that is necessary and not an overreach of his authority. Until he can engage and persuade effectively I don't find value in blind obedience to a hierarchy.

[DrClump]

On 6/26/2016 at 11:39 AM, Antoni said:

I totally agree with this Bishop. Today I saw far too many saints looking at non-church things on their pads/phones in all sessions. As YM 1st Counsellor the YM know not to use an electronic device during my lessons. It's amazing how their knowledge of and ability to navigate the scriptures has vastly improved over the last 9 months since using paper scriptures. Likewise they've learnt to use the Bible Dictionary and we're had all sorts of conversations about things in the scriptures like footnotes/cross references and the maps, which we never would have done using electronic versions.

For those saying they "need" these devices (for themselves or others) that's just nonsense. You need to learn to focus on the more important things and likewise teach others the same. Taking a quad to meeting is no real challenge, I always do and so use that if I need to look something up. We also need to sometimes accept we might well be bored in a sacrament meeting. Honestly I was today during parts, but that's how it is. Life sometimes is boring and I'd rather be bored than succumb to culture of instant pleasure and gratification that invades our lives from sources that are not of God.

I challenge those here to go to sacrament for 4 weeks without any electrical device and see if it's the unbearable burden you claim. 

If I was ever called as Bishop I would instigate a similar policy I feel - it would stop the most frustrating thing which is when people use iPads or worse phones for their talk notes and we have to sit their for an age whilst they "sort out their technical hitch / or find their place (whilst scrolling up and down frantically)"

My previous Bishop had a counsellor who used to spend sacrament meeting on his device, when I spoke to the Bishop about it he suddenly realised how disrespectful it looks (even if the counsellor was doing something that was related to his calling) and so made sure it didn't happen on the stand. That had a knock on effect on there rest of the congregation. 

I suppose it links in with the whole topic of reverence. As a convert to the church of several years now, the lack of reverence and just common courtesy in meetings is still something that jars with me far too often. 

 

Light, Love and Peace

D

 

It appears by many of these posts that most members are worried about what the other members are doing than paying attention. Darn, get over it! It someone is using their phone in sacrament let them use it. I don't think we should be on the devices when the sacrament is being administered, but before and after...you need to choose to stop looking around at others and judging them. I think the parents who try to enforce that their young kids stay in sacrament meeting and let them cry without taking them out are the real distractors. Take your kids out! I have 2 young kids myself. 

Antoni, I really hope you're not called as Bishop. When you are Bishop I'd like to see you tell the missionaries to put away their iPads because they are at church. It's going to be VERY hard to review their progress report without technology. Everything the missionaries do is on their iPad. PEC and Ward Council would be very difficult these days without technology. As Bishop, you would realize there are MANY MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO THAN TO DRAW UP POLICIES LIKE THIS! When I was Bishop I gained so much more respect for loving others and not setting up these dumb policies.

My counselor would use his iPad on the stand every Sunday after the sacrament was passed to take attendance of the individuals/families that were and weren't present. Those that missed a few weeks in a row, we reached out to them to see if everything was ok. Sure he could print out a new ward roster each week to take attendance on, but that would be a waste of tithing dollars for paper, toner, and use on the printer. 

My Stake President has done similar things before he really thought through all the pros and cons that would come from it. I wanted to give the Sisters a break from their Sunday responsibilities on Mother's Day and have them all attend Sunday School and Relief Society together. We would get the Brothers to teach in Primary and my wife and I were going to do Sharing Time. Well, my Stake President got wind of it and quickly put a stop to it. I already announced to the Ward Council this was my intention. I had to go back and let them know that I couldn't do it. The word had already gone out to the Sisters that this was my intention. The Stake President told me that I better not blame him when I let the sisters know that I couldn't give them a break. In the end, it has caused more harm than good for him! I wonder if this might be the same for this Bishop. Not everything that comes from the leaders is inspired. This is coming from a former Bishop. I was released 3 months ago. Let me repeat, not everything that comes from the mouth of a Bishop, Stake President, etc. is revelation or inspired from on high.

There is way too much judging going on. If you are offended by evil Bro. Johnson looking FB during sacrament meeting, then look away. You don't have to watch him on his phone. Pay attention to the speaker.

We have many area authorities, mission presidents, even General Authorities visit our sacrament meeting, and guess what...most had iPads and were using them to instruct from. I sat next to my Stake President and his counselors countless times during sacrament and they always had their iPads and phones out.