Bishop Bans Electronic Devices

[Thinking]

Quote

WASHINGTON D.C. - President elect Donald Trump announced today that he will propose an amendment to the constitution that would prevent organizations from forbidding the use of technology in meetings. Trump, who recently met with the First Presidency of the LDS Church, likes the principle of "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." Trump is also considering making it illegal to forbid using technology while driving (unless and until that driver has an accident while using technology). "Drivers who can use technology and safely drive shouldn't be punished because  there are some who can't" he said. When asked about the logistics of police officers knowing whether a driver who is using technology while driving has had such an accident, Trump replied, "That's something the police will have to figure out."

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Thinking

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Thinking said:

 

Reference?

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

WASHINGTON D.C. - President elect Donald Trump announced today that he will propose an amendment to the constitution that would prevent organizations from forbidding the use of technology in meetings. 

I'm pretty sure that Scott will beg the editors to let him write the DN editorial strongly in favor of this law . . .

It was satire on Thinking's part, bluebell . . .  

[bluebell]

Just now, rongo said:

I'm pretty sure that Scott will beg the editors to let him write the DN editorial strongly in favor of this law . . .

It was satire on Thinking's part, bluebell . . .  

I figured it was some satire site, but wasn't sure whether he had gotten it from somewhere or had written it himself.  

[Thinking]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I figured it was some satire site, but wasn't sure whether he had gotten it from somewhere or had written it himself.  

I wrote it.

[Rain]

Heard of something that reminded me of this thread.

My mom said her stake president has asked people not to use their devices in sacrament meeting...because the last SP had asked them not to open their scriptures in sacrament meeting, but to write references down on a paper if needed, because the sacrament makes this an ordinance meeting - now they shouldn't need devices since they won't be looking up scriptures. 

 

[Ouagadougou]

Can I bring my seer stone to church? 😀

 

http://www.ldsliving.com/President-Uchtdorf-Shares-What-He-Believes-About-Seer-Stones/s/82469

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Heard of something that reminded me of this thread.

My mom said her stake president has asked people not to use their devices in sacrament meeting...because the last SP had asked them not to open their scriptures in sacrament meeting, but to write references down on a paper if needed, because the sacrament makes this an ordinance meeting - now they shouldn't need devices since they won't be looking up scriptures. 

 

Mother McCreedy!

A side benefit of reading stuff on this message board is I have occasion now and then to feel especially glad I belong to the ward and stake l do. 

Where do these guys get this stuff? Not the handbooks, surely. 

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Mother McCreedy!

A side benefit of reading stuff on this message board is I have occasion now and then to feel especially glad I belong to the ward and stake l do. 

Where do these guys get this stuff? Not the handbooks, surely. 

Inspiration. Connected to the keys for that area. 

My stake president told my wife something last week (temple recommend interview). He told her that at a recent coordinating council, a member of the seventy had taught the stake presidents that the handbooks are a guideline, but that real inspiration can trump the handbooks (just make sure that it's real inspiration!). He shared a recent story about a foreign mission president who violated several handbook proscriptions because the Holy Ghost told him to ---- and the results were inspiring. The reason he shared this with my wife is he was expressing gratitude to her that I use wisdom, judgment, and the Spirit to do what is right and needs to be done, even when policy stands in the way (we have had some instances in our stake where a slavish, unthinking adherence to the handbooks have actually created problems). 

The bishop who is the subject of this thread has the keys to address the issues in his ward. That Scott Lloyd, Deseret News reporter, apoplectically sits in judgment over how he exercises his keys, doesn't matter. 

My father was a YSA bishop for six years (most in the Church are in for three --- it's a taxing calling). They had a big problem with the members hugging each other (a lot) all the time --- church meetings, activities, etc. This is a growing issue among young people. As a teacher, I constantly have female students wanting hugs, and while I try to find ways not to, it isn't always easy without offending or being misunderstood. In my father's ward, several men struggling with pornorgraphy and masturbation told him that the hugging phenomenon made it harder for them, because they found themselves using the hugs pornographically --- as fantasy ideation. It was enough of a problem that the bishopric asked the ward not to hug each other in greeting at church or activities. His relief society president freaked out about this, much like you do about the topic of priesthood leaders asking members not to use electronics at church, and she called a meeting in her apartment of ward members to discuss how to fight this unjust and misguided bishopric policy. She was promptly released from her calling, any bad feelings died down, and the ward accepted and carried out the policy.

The fact is that individual wards are different, with different challenges and issues. The ward in question may have such issues that this policy is needed, whereas it may not be as needed in other wards. That's up to the bishop and stake president to decide. I find it interesting that you take umbrage at a blanket policy like this applying even to the "responsible" electronics users, while you do pretty much the same thing in not wanting local leaders to use their keys to preside over their stewardships. You want to apply your blanket policy to all wards and stakes. Even ones that you thank your lucky stars you don't belong to!  

[6EQUJ5]

Quote

The bishop who is the subject of this thread has the keys to address the issues in his ward. That Scott Lloyd, Deseret News reporter, apoplectically sits in judgment over how he exercises his keys, doesn't matter. 

Thank you for the post rongo. Great examples of local leaders acting with the Spirit.  

Scott's reaction to this has been very surprising. In the past Scott has strongly defended the independence and stewardship local leaders carrying out high-profile excommunication (something I completely agree with) when critics were trying to claim that these were part of some big clampdown from the Brethren. Either we trust and sustain our local leaders but we don't.

Quote

The fact is that individual wards are different, with different challenges and issues. The ward in question may have such issues that this policy is needed, whereas it may not be as needed in other wards. That's up to the bishop and stake president to decide. I find it interesting that you take umbrage at a blanket policy like this applying even to the "responsible" electronics users, while you do pretty much the same thing in not wanting local leaders to use their keys to preside over their stewardships. You want to apply your blanket policy to all wards and stakes. Even ones that you thank your lucky stars you don't belong to!  

It is almost like Scott approves or disapproves of local leaders depending on his own preferences and biases.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

Inspiration. Connected to the keys for that area. 

My stake president told my wife something last week (temple recommend interview). He told her that at a recent coordinating council, a member of the seventy had taught the stake presidents that the handbooks are a guideline, but that real inspiration can trump the handbooks (just make sure that it's real inspiration!). He shared a recent story about a foreign mission president who violated several handbook proscriptions because the Holy Ghost told him to ---- and the results were inspiring. The reason he shared this with my wife is he was expressing gratitude to her that I use wisdom, judgment, and the Spirit to do what is right and needs to be done, even when policy stands in the way (we have had some instances in our stake where a slavish, unthinking adherence to the handbooks have actually created problems). 

The bishop who is the subject of this thread has the keys to address the issues in his ward. That Scott Lloyd, Deseret News reporter, apoplectically sits in judgment over how he exercises his keys, doesn't matter. 

My father was a YSA bishop for six years (most in the Church are in for three --- it's a taxing calling). They had a big problem with the members hugging each other (a lot) all the time --- church meetings, activities, etc. This is a growing issue among young people. As a teacher, I constantly have female students wanting hugs, and while I try to find ways not to, it isn't always easy without offending or being misunderstood. In my father's ward, several men struggling with pornorgraphy and masturbation told him that the hugging phenomenon made it harder for them, because they found themselves using the hugs pornographically --- as fantasy ideation. It was enough of a problem that the bishopric asked the ward not to hug each other in greeting at church or activities. His relief society president freaked out about this, much like you do about the topic of priesthood leaders asking members not to use electronics at church, and she called a meeting in her apartment of ward members to discuss how to fight this unjust and misguided bishopric policy. She was promptly released from her calling, any bad feelings died down, and the ward accepted and carried out the policy.

The fact is that individual wards are different, with different challenges and issues. The ward in question may have such issues that this policy is needed, whereas it may not be as needed in other wards. That's up to the bishop and stake president to decide. I find it interesting that you take umbrage at a blanket policy like this applying even to the "responsible" electronics users, while you do pretty much the same thing in not wanting local leaders to use their keys to preside over their stewardships. You want to apply your blanket policy to all wards and stakes. Even ones that you thank your lucky stars you don't belong to!  

I've been in at least one Seminar for New Mission Presidents where departing mission presidents and their wives were strictly instructed that the principles and procedures in the missionary guide "Preach My Gospel" are the current way things are to be done and they are not to ignore or supplant them with other methods or procedures, even those that they think worked for them in the past as missionaries or leaders. 

I recall similar instruction from one of those seminars to the effect that new missionaries should never be told, "Forget what they told you in the MTC. We do things differently in this mission."

I also know that local unit leaders occasionally go off the rails and have had to be corrected, even though they probably thought they were inspired at the time. I have cited examples here on this thread, as have others. So I know that it occasionally happens. 

Forbidding the Latter-day Saints from using electronic resources while at church for reading, citing and discussing scripture and other  content on the Gospel Library app strikes me as going off the rails. So does forbidding meeting attendees from opening their scriptures during sacrament meeting because it is an "ordinance meeting" (where did <that> come from?). 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

I had mixed feelings about even posting what I did, because I still feel that the leaders of the specific areas have authority over those areas and if they banned the use of electronic media at church I still think it should be at least prayerfully considered. When I was writing my post I knew it wasn't quite right - I should have waited till I could word it right.

I posted that because it was far from what I would have expected and I would have really struggled with not opening my paper scriptures. There have been some periods of my life I could not focus during the sacrament and reading the hymns and sometimes the scriprures that went along with them really helped.  So I would have a very difficult time prayerfully considering this. I would definitely have to humble myself. 

Then I think of parents with children.  When my youngest was a baby or maybe even earlier I discovered that having lots of entertaining things backfired with my 3 year old and 6 year old. They were actually less quiet in church! We decided by that age they could have 1 piece of paper and 1 pen\pencil. The youngest had a few baby toys, but as he grew older we brought fewer toys then switched him at about 2.5 to one paper.

Our children have often been complimented on their behavior in church.  A lot of it has to do with taking them out and having to sit on our laps in the foyer or an empty class room when they wouldn't behave, but I saw such a big change in the reverence of the older 2 when I limited extra things to the one paper that I know that too much stuff can truly be too much for sacrament meeting with adults as well.  

And just to be clear,  I don't think that one paper\pen will suffice for every child.  We decided to try it for 3-4 weeks because we knew there would be a learning curve for them. Some parents may need to go longer. Some kids it will never work on.

Perhaps in wards where a leader comes up with an unusual idea it would be good to not only prayerfully consider it, but also try it out for a few weeks. The not opening the paper scripture one?  That would be really tough for me - I hope  if it were my own stake that I could be humble enough to consider it. 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Rain

[Jeanne]

On 12/2/2016 at 9:16 AM, Woody said:

Our ward choir director put a lot of work into getting the choir ready to sing a certain special hymn. On the day of, tho, she was sick and someone else directed. I felt sorry for her and without a lot of thought, pulled out my phone and took a photo of the choir singing so I could send her the picture. Unfortunately for me,
a) I forgot to silence the camera click sound
b) the bishopric had vacated their seats to sit in the congregation
c) the bishop was right in front of me, camera about six inches from his ears

Ouch!!

[Thinking]

On 6/23/2016 at 2:37 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.

It's been almost 6 months since this "ban." Has the bishop been instructed to lift the ban or is it still in place?

[canard78]

On 03/12/2016 at 2:45 PM, rongo said:

Inspiration. Connected to the keys for that area. 

My stake president told my wife something last week (temple recommend interview). He told her that at a recent coordinating council, a member of the seventy had taught the stake presidents that the handbooks are a guideline, but that real inspiration can trump the handbooks (just make sure that it's real inspiration!). He shared a recent story about a foreign mission president who violated several handbook proscriptions because the Holy Ghost told him to ---- and the results were inspiring. The reason he shared this with my wife is he was expressing gratitude to her that I use wisdom, judgment, and the Spirit to do what is right and needs to be done, even when policy stands in the way (we have had some instances in our stake where a slavish, unthinking adherence to the handbooks have actually created problems). 

The bishop who is the subject of this thread has the keys to address the issues in his ward. That Scott Lloyd, Deseret News reporter, apoplectically sits in judgment over how he exercises his keys, doesn't matter. 

My father was a YSA bishop for six years (most in the Church are in for three --- it's a taxing calling). They had a big problem with the members hugging each other (a lot) all the time --- church meetings, activities, etc. This is a growing issue among young people. As a teacher, I constantly have female students wanting hugs, and while I try to find ways not to, it isn't always easy without offending or being misunderstood. In my father's ward, several men struggling with pornorgraphy and masturbation told him that the hugging phenomenon made it harder for them, because they found themselves using the hugs pornographically --- as fantasy ideation. It was enough of a problem that the bishopric asked the ward not to hug each other in greeting at church or activities. His relief society president freaked out about this, much like you do about the topic of priesthood leaders asking members not to use electronics at church, and she called a meeting in her apartment of ward members to discuss how to fight this unjust and misguided bishopric policy. She was promptly released from her calling, any bad feelings died down, and the ward accepted and carried out the policy.

The fact is that individual wards are different, with different challenges and issues. The ward in question may have such issues that this policy is needed, whereas it may not be as needed in other wards. That's up to the bishop and stake president to decide. I find it interesting that you take umbrage at a blanket policy like this applying even to the "responsible" electronics users, while you do pretty much the same thing in not wanting local leaders to use their keys to preside over their stewardships. You want to apply your blanket policy to all wards and stakes. Even ones that you thank your lucky stars you don't belong to!  

There are at least two bits of this that make my eyes pop!

"...real inspiration can trump the handbooks (just make sure that it's real inspiration!)..."

Real inspiration? As opposed to counterfeit inspiration? And how does one decide or decipher when it's real inspiration and when it's just personal preference? 

And then this bit: 

"...several men struggling with pornorgraphy and masturbation told him that the hugging phenomenon made it harder for them, because they found themselves using the hugs pornographically --- as fantasy ideation..."

Seriously?! The bishop stopped everyone else from hugging each other, simply because a few guys were getting aroused by hugging? He should have focused on telling them to stop being such creeps and realise that a hug is a hug. 

People need to take responsibility for their own problems. That's like someone struggling with a diet wanting shops to stop selling cake to all the other people who can eat cake responsibly. 

[Calm]

While I agree that stopping hugging might have been too much (I think I would have suggested instead to talk to the RS President about the issue and then have her discuss it with the sisters and perhaps include suggestions for shorter and less full body contact), telling someone to get over being a creep when they are likely having addictive thoughts (if they can't control them to that extent even when they desire to control them, it sounds like a true dysfunction, possibly addiction, possibly something else) isn't helpful or healthy, IMO.  I would not tell an alcoholic to stop being a lush and just get over their triggers to drink and insist they should just deal with being at places they come in contact with alcohol, but would try to help them with coping behaviour or direct them to someone who could...nor would I ban alcohol simply so they wouldn't be confronted, but try to work out a compromise so that those who desired it could have it and those who had issues could avoid it.

Perhaps have a foyer or probably better an early time period where hugging was part of the social dialogue, but suggest that the remainder of the meetings be limited to other forms of welcoming.

[Calm]

I may have a different view of hugging as a female or as simply my grandmother's granddaughter.  While I loved her, she had a tendency to grab our arm tightly and pull us next to her when she was lecturing us.  It was not a pleasant experience and this transferred for me to end of visits when we would then be required to give her a hug or a kiss.

I have also seen how uncomfortable giving kisses and hugs on demand are for some kids while others throw themselves into it.  My two granddaughters are examples of both and I feel so bad for the one who is shy when she is required by her mom to come over and kiss me when I don't feel the least bit hurt by her reluctance (and I need to remember to talk to her mom about it because it is not looking like just a phase and while I don't give advice usually on parenting, I think I will do it this time).

I think most people totally get why we shouldn't require kids to hug adults when they don't want to.  I see no reason to force adults into situations where they feel obligated to do so or be branded standoffish or whatever.  Shy people won't get over their currently uncontrollable thoughts of shyness by being forced by others out of their comfort zone and the result is more likely complete avoidance.  Why should extraverts have more say in establishing what their culture is simply because they are more comfortable vocalizing what they want or are just more pushy about it.

And the same goes IMO for those who have currently uncontrollable thoughts of a physical nature IMO.  

If it was a case of a number of women being uncomfortable about being hugged by men because they were worried the men were having inappropriate thoughts, would you tell them to stop being creeps and take personal responsibility for their own thoughts or would you believe they have a right to determine what happens to their own bodies, including who does and does not touch them and how?

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

While I agree that stopping hugging might have been too much (I think I would have suggested instead to talk to the RS President about the issue and then have her discuss it with the sisters and perhaps include suggestions for shorter and less full body contact), telling someone to get over being a creep when they are likely having addictive thoughts (if they can't control them to that extent even when they desire to control them, it sounds like a true dysfunction, possibly addiction, possibly something else) isn't helpful or healthy, IMO.  I would not tell an alcoholic to stop being a lush and just get over their triggers to drink and insist they should just deal with being at places they come in contact with alcohol, but would try to help them with coping behaviour or direct them to someone who could...nor would I ban alcohol simply so they wouldn't be confronted, but try to work out a compromise so that those who desired it could have it and those who had issues could avoid it.

Perhaps have a foyer or probably better an early time period where hugging was part of the social dialogue, but suggest that the remainder of the meetings be limited to other forms of welcoming.

How do you think modesty relates to this and the idea that women are responsible for someone else's thoughts?

Is telling men to stop thinking about women that way the same?

[bluebell]

Sometimes we members pick really odd hills to die on.

I manage to make it thru church every sunday without being hugged, so it's clearly not an essential or necessary part of the gospel.  While on my mission, we could only hug other women.  Guess what??  We all survived.  Thrived even. 

I don't see a problem with a bishop asking people not to be passively/aggressively sexual at church (because when you freak out about not being able to hug the opposite sex, it's not because you feel like your ability to be friendly is being curbed).  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's been almost 6 months since this "ban." Has the bishop been instructed to lift the ban or is it still in place?

This was asked earlier. The question is who would mandate that the ban be lifted, and how would that entity even know that the ban was in place. 

And there was some discussion about whether inaction necessarily implies "tacit approval." I'm of the opinion that it doesn't.  

Edited December 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On December 2, 2016 at 11:12 AM, rongo said:

Even worse is the filming/photographing of ordinances (mostly baptism). I have been in a position to directly address this before the fact with the families (that they can't photograph or film the baptism), but it sometimes happens that family/friends come and it needs to be lovingly but firmly explained. Sometimes people are really peeved and think it's a stupid policy, but the policy is very clear. Funerals, too. I have had family start setting up a tripod in the chapel, and have had to explain that the service may not be videorecorded (audio, yes). There has been anger and frustration with this, too.

No matter how much one tries in advance to head off potential concerns, it is the nature of things that they will crop up, anyway.

Couldn't you just make an exception? You know, by way of not letting the handbook rules get in the way of personal, <real> inspiration? 

(Sorry. There was an opening there I just couldn't resist. No need to respond.)

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How do you think modesty relates to this and the idea that women are responsible for someone else's thoughts?

Is telling men to stop thinking about women that way the same?

People are responsible for their own thoughts, shy people are responsible for dealing with their shyness, introververts with their introversion, germophobics with their phobias, reserved people with their reservations...I can think of tons of reasons someone may not want to hug.  Should these individuals be either ignored or given precedence over those who enjoy hugging for good reasons?  Not to my view, but I would hope we could encourage an environment where we are okay with asking people what they would prefer rather than assuming, especially given a number of individuals have difficulties in a variety of ways with physical contact due to being abused as children or adults.

People need to take responsibility for their own thoughts, whatever they are, and not lay that burden on someone else; but we can also be kind and try to anticipate where someone might have issues and provide accommodation or alternatives that can be easily accessed without stigma.  Nor should we be culturally blind and ignore expectations of the community we are in as if our own preferences should always be top priority. However, it is also unkind to demand more extreme accommodations in general circumstances; people should not be forced to pay for or work at expensive or time consuming projects for minor benefits for one person, IMO.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Calm

[sjdawg]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

While I agree that stopping hugging might have been too much (I think I would have suggested instead to talk to the RS President about the issue and then have her discuss it with the sisters and perhaps include suggestions for shorter and less full body contact), telling someone to get over being a creep when they are likely having addictive thoughts (if they can't control them to that extent even when they desire to control them, it sounds like a true dysfunction, possibly addiction, possibly something else) isn't helpful or healthy, IMO.  I would not tell an alcoholic to stop being a lush and just get over their triggers to drink and insist they should just deal with being at places they come in contact with alcohol, but would try to help them with coping behaviour or direct them to someone who could...nor would I ban alcohol simply so they wouldn't be confronted, but try to work out a compromise so that those who desired it could have it and those who had issues could avoid it.

Perhaps have a foyer or probably better an early time period where hugging was part of the social dialogue, but suggest that the remainder of the meetings be limited to other forms of welcoming.

Agreed. They don't have to hug anyone if it makes them uncomfortable.   It seems fanatical to create a policy banning hugging.  I don't like hugging people hello or goodbye.  it makes me uncomfortable.  Not because it is sexualized but just because I'm not a very affectionate person.   I don't expect it to be banned anywhere I will be.  That is crazy.  I just preempt it with a handshake

Edited December 5, 2016 by sjdawg

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Agreed. They don't have to hug anyone if it makes them uncomfortable.   It seems fanatical to create a policy banning hugging.  I don't like hugging people hello or goodbye.  it makes me uncomfortable.  Not because it is sexualized but just because I'm not a very affectionate person.   I don't expect it to be banned anywhere I will be.  That is crazy.  I just preempt it with a handshake

They could start a new tradition, simply ask first "handshake or hug"...as long as a specific reason was not identified and instead it was "there are many who are more reserved or who feel uncomfortable with hugs and we should respect that and show our love and welcoming by not hugging them"

[Thinking]

Give me my electronic device or give me death!