Bishop Bans Electronic Devices

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I live in a different world than most here.  I don't own a cell phone.  I have a land line ...the olden days where I check for messages and call back and nothing interrupts my simple world.  I love the smell of new and old books and in my active days, loved my quad.  I don't know..I am just simply amazed that so many will do so much for the Lord and the church (some of which is difficult and painful for others) and yet..can't leave the darn things alone.

I'm leaning toward your side. We did fine without them in the old days. Why not now? I guess it should still be a choice, but maybe the bishop does have every right to speak about it being a distraction. And leave it up to the people, peer pressure may be enough to do the trick. I noticed yesterday a lot of cell phone usage. It seemed they were pulled out right after the Sacrament.

My husband has his quad from his missionary days, and you'll see him reading through the scriptures and his lips moving, because he enjoys memorizing the scriptures. His gift he picked up on his mission. But sometimes I think he hasn't heard a word of the talk. I give it my best to listen on my good days, I've been bad on others. I tend to think the speaker deserves our respect, no matter how dull. 

 

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm leaning toward your side. We did fine without them in the old days. Why not now? I guess it should still be a choice, but maybe the bishop does have every right to speak about it being a distraction. And leave it up to the people, peer pressure may be enough to do the trick. I noticed yesterday a lot of cell phone usage. It seemed they were pulled out right after the Sacrament.

My husband has his quad from his missionary days, and you'll see him reading through the scriptures and his lips moving, because he enjoys memorizing the scriptures. His gift he picked up on his mission. But sometimes I think he hasn't heard a word of the talk. I give it my best to listen on my good days, I've been bad on others. I tend to think the speaker deserves our respect, no matter how dull. 

 

Oh...I agree that it should be a matter of choice..but I also believe that people just may enjoy their meeting a little more if they give it a chance.  Obviously, I haven't been to a meeting for quite awhile.  At funerals though..it really ticks me off.

[cynth]

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Oh, and for what it's worth: it's kinda patronizing, not to mention absurd, to tell those of us who belong to other Faiths that our services/circumstances are "less....

Agreed, but get used to it.  That Mormon quality of 'we are members,' accompanied by the obnoxious notion that the entire rest of the world can be totally and completely defined as nonmembers, i.e. less than, is ubiquitous by some here, not all, but some.

 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, cynth said:

Agreed, but get used to it.  That Mormon quality of 'we are members,' accompanied by the obnoxious notion that the entire rest of the world can be totally and completely defined as nonmembers, i.e. less than, is ubiquitous by some here, not all, but some.

 

It seems a little odd to attempt to suggest that when LDS members use the term non member (which is simply a statement of fact) they are making a judgement of 'less than'.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand, everyone could show up in the relief society room and use their devices as they wanted without being disobedient.

I am seeing the whole ward squeezing into ours, lol.

[cynth]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems a little odd to attempt to suggest that when LDS members use the term non member (which is simply a statement of fact) they are making a judgement of 'less than'.  

You understand I was explaining a comment by HappyJackWagon where it was suggested that Mormons are listening and engaging while members of other religions don't:

Quote

In my experience LDS services are more interactive than many other traditions in the sense that people are listening and trying to engage as they synthesize info

That statement above is so very offensive.  I cannot emphasize that enough!  it is brutal and nasty and mean-spirited, and so many Mormons talk that way and then seem so shocked when it is brought to their attention.    I was trying to lessen the blow by explaining how Mormons see 'us' and 'them' differently, but we could just let it stand as a purely obnoxious, viciously inappropriate statement.  Is that really an acceptable way to refer to the entire rest of the world?  I don't think so.   That was my point about Mormons using the term 'nonmember' to mean 'less than.'

Edited June 28, 2016 by cynth

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cynth said:

You understand I was explaining a comment by HappyJackWagon where it was suggested that Mormons are listening and engaging while members of other religions don't:

That statement above is so very offensive.  I cannot emphasize that enough!  it is brutal and nasty and mean-spirited, and so many Mormons talk that way and then seem so shocked when it is brought to their attention.    I was trying to lessen the blow by explaining how Mormons see 'us' and 'them' differently, but we could just let it stand as a purely obnoxious, viciously inappropriate statement.  Is that really an acceptable way to refer to the entire rest of the world?  I don't think so.   That was my point about Mormons using the term 'nonmember' to mean 'less than.'

First-yes, it was an offensive statement.  It does not represent how mormons in general view other worship services.  

Second-It's also offensive to suggest that mormons see 'us' and 'them' in terms of 'them' being less than.  Mormons don't use 'non-member' in that way.  We use it as a shortened way to say 'not a member of the LDS church' (which is a mouthful).  It's brutal and nasty and mean-spirited to imply that we do use that term in such a way.

[cynth]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First-yes, it was an offensive statement.  It does not represent how mormons in general view other worship services.  

Second-It's also offensive to suggest that mormons see 'us' and 'them' in terms of 'them' being less than.  Mormons don't use 'non-member' in that way.  We use it as a shortened way to say 'not a member of the LDS church' (which is a mouthful).  It's brutal and nasty and mean-spirited to imply that we do use that term in such a way.

Thank you for the explanation of happyjackwagon's comment, I appreciate it is not a universal opinion.   As for it being 'brutal and nasty and mean-spirited to imply' Mormons use the term that way, I am basing my opinion on the way I see Mormons use it here.  I hope your approach is in the majority of people's minds, but sadly it is not the majority of what I see posted.   

[bluebell]

Just now, cynth said:

Thank you for the explanation of happyjackwagon's comment, I appreciate it is not a universal opinion.   As for it being 'brutal and nasty and mean-spirited to imply' Mormons use the term that way, I am basing my opinion on the way I see Mormons use it here.  I hope your approach is in the majority of people's minds, but sadly it is not the majority of what I see posted.   

That's probably just a symptom of this kind of a board.  When i visit boards devoted to other religions (like Catholicism, Evangelical, or whatever), those posters also come across as very spiritually self centered.  Sometimes they are, but most of the time it's just because they know they are talking to members of their religion and they have a kind of short-hand way of speaking that can sound really self righteous to outsiders. 

But, it's always a concern we have to be cognizant of.  The idea that our belief system is superior to other's is a universal weakness that plague's all of humanity, not just mormons.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, cynth said:

Yes, absolutely.  If a congregation is organized why would it not be provided for exactly as any other congregation is provided for?  What is the rationale for skimping on resources?  Simply because they don't speak your language??

 

We are talking about the STAKE center, not a "congregation".

What your suggestion is is that since occasionally the entire stake is invited there and since theoretically everyone could show up, and that stake has perhaps four languages in the stake, and the size of a typical ward is say 400 people, if among the 10 units perhaps in the stake, if there are say two Chinese Wards, two Samoan Wards, two Spanish Wards and Four English wards, one should have available 400 books for each ward.

So that's 800 Chinese hymnals, 800 Samoan hymnals, 800 Samoan hymnals 800 Spanish hymnals 1600 English hymnals.

I find that unreasonable just so that people do not use their electronics.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The last place we lived in Utah had a Tongan ward that met in our building. They had bookshelves on wheels containing hymn books, which would be moved to by the doors before the meetings started. As we came into sacrament meeting, we took a hymnal from the shelf and then put it back after the meeting. The system worked quite well. 

Our ward buildings which usually house one English ward and one Spanish or Samoan ward just have two books in each hymnal receptacle.  No racks needed.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

"Racist"....?  I chuckled at those opening comments, mfb, because I was raised in an international LDS stake in Europe.  In our stake chapel, three different branches met, and in the pews, we had three sets of hymnbooks: one English, one French, and one Flemish...  That was standard for many meetinghouses hosting congregations speaking a plurality of languages.  The same was and is true of both meeting houses I frequented during my mission in South America, as well as  my family's meetinghouses in California... several of our chapels had both English and Spanish hymnals. 

So, in my experience, yes, its very commonplace for each stake center have a full set of hymnbooks for each congregation which meets there.  I don't see anything unusual about that, and it's certainly not racist.

Now, on rare occasions when combined congregations or Stakes have an unexpected influx of foreign-speaking visitors, or occasional non-native-speaking visitors, and there aren't resources to allow the use of printed materials, do I view it as appropriate to allow the use of electronics during the meetings...?  Of course that's reasonable.  But that's arguing from the fringe/exceptions, rather than the general rule.

Fine, no problem.   I used the term "racist" as a rhetorical means to show that it was impossible to accommodate everyone of all languages.

You solved it by adjusting the rule- that's fine.

But the point is that the rule AS ESTABLISHED was irrational, and it had to have exceptions made for it to even work at all.

THAT was my point.   The rule doesn't work.  That is not the result of the rule we are discussing- it has to be broken to make sense.

You know that in your own life- that humans are different and have different requirements and that one stupid blanket rule does not cover everyone.

But the bottom line is- if it needs to be broken, why have it at all?

Teach proper use and you will not need the rule.   Let each person make their own rule using their own common sense, and if they do not, then so what?

Yes, even sinners need to be accommodated in church.  You just keep teaching.

Let's concentrate on our OWN sins not what we see as the sins of others.  I think you get that principle perfectly.   Some folks hate people who use electronics in church and others hate people who do not perform the same sins they do.   

There's room in this world for everyone- IF we learn to mind our own business and not make up stupid rules which do not work

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, cynth said:

I don't know where mfbukowsi's comment about racism came from, it really seemed out of left field to me, and is certainly inappropriate.  Please don't think others are making that assessment, because NO ONE is. Just ignore him.

Sounds good to me!  Why don't you start now?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, Is Back said:

I'd do what my bishop asked me to do.  That's the way the Lord blesses me.  Some of you are on the road to destruction.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elder+oaks+even+if+wrong+the+lord+bless

 

Dial it back, Is Back. We do not allow posters to condemn other posters' religious beliefs.

Would you have done what your bishop asked you to do if it meant being one of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not talking about merely silencing our phones, but in putting them away and not looking at them or using them.  There are a lot of places and events in our secular world where that is asked of those who attend the function and no one complains or thinks it's odd.  I don't think a newcomer would be at all surprised if they were asked not to use their electronic devices during an LDS worship service.

Other than a darkened theater, where a the light from the screen of a personal device would indeed be a distraction, I'm hard-pressed to think of any secular occasion where people are forbidden to even turn on and look at a personal device such as an organizer or a phone. I would think it rather odd, in fact.

[flameburns623]

Folks seem to be overlooking my point that we have always had distracted and/or inattentive congregants.

Folks thumbing through their Scriptures or lesson manuals or realing a magazine (faith-based or secular), reading a book (faith-based or secular), napping, etcetera.

We long have had people in the pews taking notes--or in some cases, doodling while intending to take notes.

Or preparing lessons.

Or planning their Food Storage.

Or their genealogy. Or writing in their journal.

Electronic devices are simply a new medium by which to keep oneself occupied if a speaker is not engaging.

Or to enhance their learning if the speaker is being helpful.

Edited June 28, 2016 by flameburns623

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Folks seem to be overlooking my point that we have always had distracted and/or inattentive congregants.

Folks thumbing through their Scriptures or lesson manuals or realing a magazine (faith-based or secular), reading a book (faith-based or secular), napping, etcetera.

We long have had people in the pews taking notes--or in some cases, doodling while intending to take notes.

Or preparing lessons.

Or planning their Food Storage.

Or their genealogy. Or writing in their journal.

Electronic devices are simply a new medium by which to keep oneself occupied if a speaker is not engaging.

Or to enhance their learning if the speaker is being helpful.

I'm not ignoring it. I think it quite astute, in fact. 

If we ban the devices, better ban Church magazines too -- or hard-copy scriptures. Or lesson manuals. Or day planners. 

Unless its the mere sight of a device at church that sets people off. In which case it is nothing more than quirky prejudice. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Other than a darkened theater, where a the light from the screen of a personal device would indeed be a distraction, I'm hard-pressed to think of any secular occasion where people are forbidden to even turn on and look at a personal device such as an organizer or a phone. I would think it rather odd, in fact.

Even in a darkened theater people aren't forbidden from turning on their phones. 

They are asked not to do so.

Do you think it's odd that you are asked to put away your cell phone in the temple?  I wasn't just speaking of secular occasions. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, cynth said:

You understand I was explaining a comment by HappyJackWagon where it was suggested that Mormons are listening and engaging while members of other religions don't:

That statement above is so very offensive.  I cannot emphasize that enough!  it is brutal and nasty and mean-spirited, and so many Mormons talk that way and then seem so shocked when it is brought to their attention.    I was trying to lessen the blow by explaining how Mormons see 'us' and 'them' differently, but we could just let it stand as a purely obnoxious, viciously inappropriate statement.  Is that really an acceptable way to refer to the entire rest of the world?  I don't think so.   That was my point about Mormons using the term 'nonmember' to mean 'less than.'

My apologies. I didn't intend it that way. I acknowledged that my perception could lack my lack of experience. My intention was to simply state that in my experience members in other traditions engage in different ways than we have been socialized to engage. I never suggested it as being better or worse, just different and sometimes due precisely to the kind of technology utilized in the worship services. In fact I was trying to make the point that other traditions make it easier for congregants to engage as a group. I'm still not explaining it now. Again, the totality of my statement was intending to show that our services could be improved if we learned some lessons from other traditions. I didn't mean any offense.

Edited June 28, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Is Back]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Would you have done what your bishop asked you to do if it meant being one of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

I'd do exactly what Elder Oaks councils.

[cynth]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We are talking about the STAKE center, not a "congregation".

What your suggestion is is that since occasionally the entire stake is invited there and since theoretically everyone could show up, and that stake has perhaps four languages in the stake, and the size of a typical ward is say 400 people, if among the 10 units perhaps in the stake, if there are say two Chinese Wards, two Samoan Wards, two Spanish Wards and Four English wards, one should have available 400 books for each ward.

So that's 800 Chinese hymnals, 800 Samoan hymnals, 800 Samoan hymnals 800 Spanish hymnals 1600 English hymnals.

I find that unreasonable just so that people do not use their electronics.

You mean all those wards do not have hymnals in their languages?  And occasionally when meeting at the stake they wouldn't provide those hymnals for use at that location?  why not?  Are any hymnals provided at the occasional stake meetings?

I am still curious about your anecdote that your Samoan group sang ye elders of isreal from their electronic devices when the hymnal app doesn't have a Samoan translation for that hymn.

[cynth]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

My apologies. I didn't intend it that way. I acknowledged that my perception could lack my lack of experience. My intention was to simply state that in my experience members in other traditions engage in different ways than we have been socialized to engage. I never suggested it as being better or worse, just different and sometimes due precisely to the kind of technology utilized in the worship services. In fact I was trying to make the point that other traditions make it easier for congregants to engage as a group. I'm still not explaining it now. Again, the totality of my statement was intending to show that our services could be improved if we learned some lessons from other traditions. I didn't mean any offense.

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation, and I understand better the point you wanted to make.  No offense taken.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Is Back said:

I'd do exactly what Elder Oaks councils.

Nice non-answer.

So just to be clear, IF Elder Oaks counseled you to engage in a Mountain Meadows type activity you would do it?

[Buckeye]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Other than a darkened theater, where a the light from the screen of a personal device would indeed be a distraction, I'm hard-pressed to think of any secular occasion where people are forbidden to even turn on and look at a personal device such as an organizer or a phone. I would think it rather odd, in fact.

I'm late to the discussion, but I can see both sides. In much of secular society, it is still taboo to look at phones when having dinner or engaged in other social conversation. Surely you've picked up on this, Scott.

With regards to sacrament meeting, my wife and I have had discussions with other families regarding the appropriateness of letting kids read the Friend on an iPad. In some senses it is no different than the magazine. But because there is light emitting from a screen, for some reason the kids in a row behind will inescapably be drawn to the screen too. Understandably, that bugs a lot of families.

My family happens to sit behind an 11-year old boy who plays football games on an electronic device during sacrament meeting. Sometimes even during the sacrament. You can surely understand how that presents a challenge to my kids. It's a very complicated issue, though, because the kid's father just passed away and his mother (until recently) was the ward chorister. So we never said a word. But it was tough on our kids to avoid watching the video game.

Personally, I prefer hard copy scriptures to electronic - except when I'm scrambling to put together a lesson during sacrament meeting for 2nd or 3rd hour. 

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, cynth said:

You mean all those wards do not have hymnals in their languages?  And occasionally when meeting at the stake they wouldn't provide those hymnals for use at that location?  why not?  Are any hymnals provided at the occasional stake meetings?

I am still curious about your anecdote that your Samoan group sang ye elders of isreal from their electronic devices when the hymnal app doesn't have a Samoan translation for that hymn.

It does.  It also comes in book form - you just can't get it online.  You have to talk with your distribution center to get it  - so I did and they do have it.  If you download the lds music app fromm the playstore you can find Samoan between Russion and Swedish languages that are all available on the app.  I also found an app, not put out by the store, but by someone on Apple that has Samoan hymns.  

 

edit: now I see we are talking about one specific song.  I'll have to find what it was and look it up.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Rain