Bishop Bans Electronic Devices

[sdc999]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Right. Blame the untrained lay speakers, who are different each week.

So, are you stating that members should not expect quality talks because the church has structured the meetings in the manner in which they have?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is interesting. Are your children on their devices during an LDS sacrament meeting? Just curious.

I was glad to read that your children "hadn't even thought of getting, their phone out," and I thought that part of that might be that they were at another church and wanted to be respectful. It would be rude to go to another church's service and be playing on your phone, and this would probably be a subtle incentive for people not to be disrespectful. And this made me think that "familiarity might bring contempt" in our services --- because these are our meetings, many might be more inclined to be more casual and less-respectful, and use their devices often when they would not do it in another service out of respect. 

Kind of how family often are more rude to each other when they wouldn't dream of being that rude to people outside of the family. 

I think you're right that there may be a propensity to be more casual but I think that is far from "contempt". My kids aren't perfect with this and they get on their phones on occasion at our church. Usually it's towards the end of the meeting when their attention is spent but they are inconspicuous with their usage. We sometimes play sacrament meeting bingo because it's a fun way to pay attention, and they access their bingo cards on the phone. They aren't distracting anyone. They could have been just as inconspicuous at the other church. They wouldn't have been the only ones with their phones out. The other major difference I've noticed with other churches is that they don't seem to have nearly the online resources our LDS aps have. (Of course it's possible I'm just not aware of them). But that means at the other church my kids weren't using their phones for a hymnal, among other things. Instead, they just looked up to the big screen at the front of the rostrum and followed along with the words that were projected.

But I think there's something to learn from other church's and the way they engage the congregation. Just a couple of very simple things I noticed yesterday that helped keep my attention. The speaker moved around a little. Even though it was a slow pace, it was some kind of movement and energy. And of course he wasn't reading a talk like many of our speakers do. They incorporated media into the meeting in respectful ways, like projecting the music lyrics on the screen for people to follow along. There was also a 5 minute countdown. When it hit zero, the pastor was ready and started immediately. The congregation was quiet and prepared. Prior to the meeting and after, there was a large foyer where members gathered to socialize. Our building wouldn't have anywhere near the space to do something like that.

I mention this only to suggest that all of these things are merely cultural differences. There's nothing doctrinal about using electronics or not, standing behind a rostrum or moving around etc.

I definitely saw more congregants engaged yesterday in what appeared to be a real attitude of worship than what I often see at our church where everyone sits, zones out for an hour, and then heads to the next class.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, sdc999 said:

So, are you stating that members should not expect quality talks because the church has structured the meetings in the manner in which they have?

Members should expect the speakers to do their best. Members should support the speakers regardless of whether their delivery is attention grabbing. As it was explained to me when I was still a believer, the speaker benefits by preparing the talk and the listener benefits by finding something in the talk to apply personally. I believe that the objective of going to church is to worship, not to be entertained.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Thinking

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Members should expect the speakers to do their best. Members should support the speakers regardless of whether their delivery is attention grabbing. As it was explained to me when I was still a believer, the speaker benefits by preparing the talk and the listener benefits by finding something in the talk to apply personally. I believe that the objective of going to church is to worship, not to be entertained.

But then, you're no longer a member, correct?

[sdc999]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Members should expect the speakers to do their best. Members should support the speakers regardless of whether their delivery is attention grabbing. As it was explained to me when I was still a believer, the speaker benefits by preparing the talk and the listener benefits by finding something in the talk to apply personally. I believe that the objective of going to church is to worship, not to be entertained.

So you and I are in agreement to a degree.  I just found it hard to be in a worshipping mood when a speaker would begin with, 'well, the bishopric tracked me down although I tried to avoid them.  As I always do, I waited till the last minute to prepare so I was up till (fill in the blank) last night.    

And I believe the church pushes the sacrament as the main reason.  I can definitely worship from anywhere as I have done and continue to do.  I find small group worship and study to particularly spiritual. Do I worship with others in a group setting?  Yes, I do on occasion.  But lately, extensive travels have not afforded me to do so; therefore, I am thankful for a God that hears my prayers from any geographic location, and not has a check mark or statistic on the wall of 'attendance last Sunday'.

[Thinking]

17 hours ago, mnn727 said:

But then, you're no longer a member, correct?

Actually, I have never officially resigned. My wife is still active and we have agreed that she will pay tithing on her half of our income.I usually attend sacrament meeting 2-3 times per year for family stuff. Without fail there are many members (mostly teenagers) who are surfing the net or participating on social media. They don't even try to hide it.

[Woody]

Here's what y'do. Take your autistic son to sacrament meeting minus the ipad. When he starts screaming and kicking or whatever he does, just smile. You smile because Phase 1 of the Plan is working.

When people give you the frownie face and jerk their heads toward the back ("take that brat out, you stupid idiot") then get up and take the boy out and give him the ipad. When he settles down, put the ipad away and bring him back in. Oh, yeah, you'll have to go out to the car to get the ipad and again to put the ipad away. Back in the chapel in your seat, wait calmly until the kid explodes again. Keep taking him out and bringing him in. And Smile. Phase 2 is working.

Phase 3. Tell anybody who asks, like for instance the bishop or one of his counsellors, what the situation is. Ask if you should stay home with the boy? (Then you don't have to get all dressed up every week)(they won't be OK with that) or should you keep bringing the boy in and out (they won't be OK with that) or should you maybe possibly bring the ipad in?

[6EQUJ5]

19 hours ago, Woody said:

Here's what y'do. Take your autistic son to sacrament meeting minus the ipad. When he starts screaming and kicking or whatever he does, just smile. You smile because Phase 1 of the Plan is working.

When people give you the frownie face and jerk their heads toward the back ("take that brat out, you stupid idiot") then get up and take the boy out and give him the ipad. When he settles down, put the ipad away and bring him back in. Oh, yeah, you'll have to go out to the car to get the ipad and again to put the ipad away. Back in the chapel in your seat, wait calmly until the kid explodes again. Keep taking him out and bringing him in. And Smile. Phase 2 is working.

Phase 3. Tell anybody who asks, like for instance the bishop or one of his counsellors, what the situation is. Ask if you should stay home with the boy? (Then you don't have to get all dressed up every week)(they won't be OK with that) or should you keep bringing the boy in and out (they won't be OK with that) or should you maybe possibly bring the ipad in?

In our ward you would simply be asked to attend in the RS room. So far it seems like this system is working out well for everyone.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

In our ward you would simply be asked to attend in the RS room. So far it seems like this system is working out well for everyone.

To your knowledge, does anyone dislike it?

[6EQUJ5]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

To your knowledge, does anyone dislike it?

I don't know anyone personally who doesn't like it but I'm sure there are those who do not.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

In our ward you would simply be asked to attend in the RS room. So far it seems like this system is working out well for everyone.

Herd them into the overflow with the other second-class ward members. EZ.

[6EQUJ5]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Herd them into the overflow with the other second-class ward members. EZ.

Your opposition to this is very odd, Scott. And I'm surprised to see it from you honestly.

You have pointed out in other threads that when Boston local leaders got out of line they were corrected by the Brethren within just a few *hours*.  This policy has now been in place for several months.  The Stake Pres approves and has praised our Bishop.

As you have pointed out, when the Brethren care they act.  If they don't act they are giving their tacit approval. If they really thought this was an issue then they would have stopped it. 

[mnn727]

9 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

 

As you have pointed out, when the Brethren care they act.  If they don't act they are giving their tacit approval. If they really thought this was an issue then they would have stopped it. 

Do they even know about it?

[6EQUJ5]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Do they even know about it?

Well obviously I don't know for certain but given how quickly the Brethren act when local congregations go rouge I would be surprised if they did not know about it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On November 25, 2016 at 7:54 AM, mnn727 said:

Do they even know about it?

I doubt it. 

The plans in Boston went viral and word got into mainstream media before it caught the attention of Church headquarters, as I recall. 

This forum is the only place I've read about this (the banning of electronics in the chapel), and not even the location has been identified, much less the ward and stake. 

Furthermore, I reject the conclusion that inaction necessarily implies tacit approval. With some things it takes a while before it becomes clear in the collective consciousness that they are inadvisable. The fad of years back in which ward members were being required to live off food storage fits into that category. It had acquired substantial legs before general leaders shut the practice down. With some things, leaders may determine it doesn't warrant making a fuss over, even though it is less than praiseworthy. Or they may decide to err for the moment on the side of local discretion -- until the thing starts to become a fad, as the food storage thing did. 

Edited to add:

In determining "tacit approval" we need to consider the fact that nothing in any of the handbooks directs or supports the banning of the use of electronic devices in a Church setting, that on the other hand, the Church has devoted considerable time, energy and resources to providing offerings for such devices, including the wonderful "Gospel Library" app, with its rich content, and other apps such as "LDS Tools," "Mormon Channel," "LDS Music," "Youth," "Doctrinal Mastery," "Bible Videos" and children's "Scripture Stories" (perhaps there are others of which I am unaware or have forgotten). 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

On 11/25/2016 at 11:41 AM, 6EQUJ5 said:

Well obviously I don't know for certain but given how quickly the Brethren act when local congregations go rouge I would be surprised if they did not know about it. 

How about this, you write the First Presidency, explaining the ban, naming the Ward, Stake and Bishop and send it to them. Lets see what happens.

Here's the address:  50 East North Temple St, Salt Lake City, UT 84150

It'll take a bit to get through the secretaries and then for the reply to filter down, but you'll get one.

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by mnn727

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:14 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I doubt it. 

The plans in Boston went viral and word got into mainstream media before it caught the attention of Church headquarters, as I recall. 

This forum is the only place I've read about this (the banning of electronics in the chapel), and not even the location has been identified, much less the ward and stake. 

Furthermore, I reject the conclusion that inaction necessarily implies tacit approval. With some things it takes a while before it becomes clear in the collective consciousness that they are inadvisable. The fad of years back in which ward members were being required to live off food storage fits into that category. It had acquired substantial legs before general leaders shut the practice down. With some things, leaders may determine it doesn't warrant making a fuss over, even though it is less than praiseworthy. Or they may decide to err for the moment on the side of local discretion -- until the thing starts to become a fad, as the food storage thing did. 

Edited to add:

In determining "tacit approval" we need to consider the fact that nothing in any of the handbooks directs or supports the banning of the use of electronic devices in a Church setting, that on the other hand, the Church has devoted considerable time, energy and resources to providing offerings for such devices, including the wonderful "Gospel Library" app, with its rich content, and other apps such as "LDS Tools," "Mormon Channel," "LDS Music," "Youth," "Doctrinal Mastery," "Bible Videos" and children's "Scripture Stories" (perhaps there are others of which I am unaware or have forgotten). 

I continue to agree with you on this thread but I'll softly challenge you on "tacit approval".

"Tacit approval" is certainly the message when a leader isn't corrected. It doesn't necessarily mean the policy is approved as being "right" or "of God" but rather that the bishop (or other presiding leader) has the authority to enact policies. Silence from higher authorities implies tacit approval of the bishop's authority to act

Quote

tac·it

[ˈtasət]

ADJECTIVE

1. understood or implied without being stated:

   "your silence may be taken to mean tacit agreement"

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I continue to agree with you on this thread but I'll softly challenge you on "tacit approval".

"Tacit approval" is certainly the message when a leader isn't corrected. It doesn't necessarily mean the policy is approved as being "right" or "of God" but rather that the bishop (or other presiding leader) has the authority to enact policies. Silence from higher authorities implies tacit approval of the bishop's authority to act

 

It goes both ways. If general Church leaders have yet to shut down* the pervasive use of electronic devices in Church settings, that implies "tacit approval" for their use.

The "tacit approval" is no more compelling in the one instance than it is in the other.

 

*Which they could easily do, just by issuing a Church-wide directive and by ceasing to make Internet content available for mobile devices.

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:14 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It goes both ways. If general Church leaders have yet to shut down* the pervasive use of electronic devices in Church settings, that implies "tacit approval" for their use.

The "tacit approval" is no more compelling in the one instance than it is in the other.

*Which they could easily do, just by issuing a Church-wide directive and by ceasing to make Internet content available for mobile devices.

I agree. There is tacit approval that electronic devices are approved for use unless or until a local leader says otherwise. But if a leader speaks up and proclaims a rule against electronics, and leadership doesn't correct, then that leader's new rule has the tacit approval of upper leadership.

It seems that tacit approval of the bishop's rule would preempt tacit approval for members of his ward to use electronics.

[Bob Crockett]

On 11/25/2016 at 1:14 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

In determining "tacit approval" we need to consider the fact that nothing in any of the handbooks directs or supports the banning of the use of electronic devices in a Church setting, that on the other hand, the Church has devoted considerable time, energy and resources to providing offerings for such devices, including the wonderful "Gospel Library" app, with its rich content, and other apps such as "LDS Tools," "Mormon Channel," "LDS Music," "Youth," "Doctrinal Mastery," "Bible Videos" and children's "Scripture Stories" (perhaps there are others of which I am unaware or have forgotten). 

Given that the electronic library contains Hymns I fully expect that there was a view that this version of the Hymns could be used in a Sacrament Meeting.  However, given the extraordinary difficulty many of us who work in the youth programs have with the kids getting out their phones for texting and surfing in the middle of meetings, I don't even take my phone to Sunday services.  I don't want the kids I teach to see me using it.  But this isn't a big deal, really, and a ban will never work.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. There is tacit approval that electronic devices are approved for use unless or until a local leader says otherwise. But if a leader speaks up and proclaims a rule against electronics, and leadership doesn't correct, then that leader's new rule has the tacit approval of upper leadership.

It seems that tacit approval of the bishop's rule would preempt tacit approval for members of his ward to use electronics.

Your dictionary definition uses the word implied, connoting intent on the part of the one allegedly doing the implying. It thus becomes a question of intent; if there is no intent to imply approval, then arguably no approval has been given, tacit or otherwise. An understanding of approval would, in such an instance, be an erroneous understanding.

Short of implied approval, there could be a number of reasons for silence or inaction on the part of those in higher authority. I have suggested two or three, not the least of which is possible lack of awareness on the part of the higher authority.

To take a very infamous example, Brigham Young was unaware that the Mountain Meadows massacre was about to occur, and he in fact did not hear about it until after it was already too late for him to have prevented it. It would thus be false and unjust to interpret inaction on his part as a reason to accuse him of tacitly approving the massacre, since he had no advance knowledge of it.

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Given that the electronic library contains Hymns I fully expect that there was a view that this version of the Hymns could be used in a Sacrament Meeting.  However, given the extraordinary difficulty many of us who work in the youth programs have with the kids getting out their phones for texting and surfing in the middle of meetings, I don't even take my phone to Sunday services.  I don't want the kids I teach to see me using it.  But this isn't a big deal, really, and a ban will never work.

 

Unruliness on the part of youth in your charge is hardly justification to forbid me or other responsible persons from making good and appropriate use of a mobile device.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:14 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

To take a very infamous example, Brigham Young was unaware that the Mountain Meadows massacre was about to occur, and he in fact did not hear about it until after it was already too late for him to have prevented it. It would thus be false and unjust to interpret inaction on his part as a reason to accuse him of tacitly approving the massacre, since he had no advance knowledge of it.

Since you brought up this example, I'm curious. If I'm remembering correctly, participants like Lee weren't disciplined for about another 10-15 years after Young became aware of their involvement. Wouldn't it have been a reasonable assumption for members to make that Young tacitly approved of the action if he didn't take action against the perpetrators after he became aware?

ETA- as you mentioned "tacit" by definition requires a person to make assumptions about the implied meaning of an action or even silence.

Quote

 

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Since you brought up this example, I'm curious. If I'm remembering correctly, participants like Lee weren't disciplined for about another 10-15 years after Young became aware of their involvement. Wouldn't it have been a reasonable assumption for members to make that Young tacitly approved of the action if he didn't take action against the perpetrators after he became aware?

ETA- as you mentioned "tacit" by definition requires a person to make assumptions about the implied meaning of an action or even silence.

 

As I understand it, having read the book by Turley, Walker and Leonard and having read an Ensign piece by Richard Turley, Brigham Young became aware of the details of the massacre incrementally over time. So, I'm hesitant to borrow an expression from the Watergate era, but it turns out to be a matter of how much did Brigham Young know and when did he know it. I'm not persuaded Brigham Young knew enough soon enough to have taken action.

And there were complicating factors. In the first Lee trial, the government prosecutors bungled the case because they were hell-bent on pinning it on Brigham Young and the Mormons as a people. They were not so much interested in bringing the perpetrators to justice as in trying the case in the press and making villains out of all Mormons and Mormonism. I believe there were many who, if they could, would have fomented another "extermination order" against the Mormons, this time with more fatal results.

I think this and other factors hindered a rigorous and timely prosecution of the case.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rchorse]

Electronic devices are a fact of life and will continue to be so. Rather than banning them, it makes more sense to me to teach proper usage, especially with the youth. What are the youth going to do at church when they leave home and have full freedom to have an electronic device? If they haven't been taught by parents and church leaders how to use them properly, I suspect they'll present much more of a problem than if they are taught how to use them correctly.

Having taught youth both before and after smartphones became commonplace, I see no more of a problem with attention now than before. The only difference is that instead of passing notes and punching each other, they're on their phones. I do see a positive difference now, though, in that they can't refuse to look up scriptures with the excuse that they don't have any. Same with other church publications.

Edited November 29, 2016 by rchorse