Major Stake and Ward Realignment Today. Do such moves hurt or help?

[bsjkki]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That doesn't upset you. My experience has been similar and it has caused all kinds of problems for the kids. So depending on why the boundary change was done the children may be suffering for unworthy reasons.

It upsets me and makes me angry. I was responding to Yirgacheffe who seems to think my comments about losing friendships over boundary changes and having concerns for the youth, make her angry. I may have misinterpreted her comments and that is why I asked.

[Scott Lloyd]

Incidentally, any of you here who so desire are welcome to visit my ward on a non-official basis as often as you like.

And when you do, please stay around after the meeting block and come to the practice of the choir I direct. I really do need more voices. We sound great, for as few as we are. We could sound even better with more singers.

For that matter, you could skip most of the meetings and just come to the choir practice -- so long as you do show up at sacrament meeting when we perform.

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this would depend upon the SP and how he chooses to do it. However, in a number of cases the bishops were just as blindsided by the changes as everyone else. SP didn't seek input or recommendations from the bishops. Again, I think this is a reflection on leadership style and personality more than church policy. Still, it had a negative impact.

We're still at the Stake level here. Stake Presidents have the final say on the creation of new wards and stakes? No one on the Area level or higher considers the issues involved, the needs which must be met, or the proffered reasons for adjusting boundaries and creating new units? Or if they do, they simply defer to the Stake President and to his proffered reasons for new unit creation and/or boundary adjustment?

 

Quote

When I watch the sausage being made close up, and sometimes am a part of making the sausage, there really isn't much need to "divine" how the sausage was made. My experience provides knowledge about how it was made.

So, not only were you intimately aware of “how the sausage was made” at the Stake level, you're intimately aware of “how the sausage was made” at the Area level and higher, as well?

 

Quote

Many factors are considered but as I suggested earlier, the factors that were most important to the SP in many of these cases were not factors I agree should have been important. Yes, that is a personal judgment call. I never claimed otherwise.

We're still on the Stake level here. Again, since you're intimately familiar with “how the sausage was made” at the Stake level, that also means that you're also intimately aware of “how the sausage was made” at the Area level and higher, as well?

 

Quote

I don't teach Gospel Doctrine but I am able to read Why are you attempting to make personal digs about my gospel understanding? Does that make you feel better?

Let's review, shall we? It wasn't I who dismissed the Parable of the Lost Sheep as irrelevant to the question of how the Good Shepherd might feel about forty-something baptisms in a Stake in a two-year period. It is not I who feels, apparently, that the latter number is insignificant. (See also circa Doctrine and Covenants Section 18, verse 10, et seq.) I'm reminded of an old French saying Dan Peterson likes to use often: Cette animal es tres mechant: Quand on l'attaque, il se defend.

Quote

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. In the cases of realignments the members are being acted upon. They either accept the change and obey the leadership or they choose to attend elsewhere. In the church I feel that most people would say that the appropriate thing would be to accept the way leadership is acting upon the individual instead of encouraging the individual to act for themselves based on what they feel would be best.

I can think of a realignment or the creation of a new unit, and the accompanying upheaval, as the worst thing that possibly could happen to me, to my family, and to my ward family, but even if that's the way I feel about it, I still have a choice as to how to respond. I can treat it as though it is something akin to a death (and I'm not saying that's an invalid response; I'm not suggesting that any adjustment required to such changed circumstances won't be challenging, and perhaps painful; I'm not suggesting that many of those involved won't go through something akin to the five stages of grief of anger, denial, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) but I am suggesting that getting hung up on one of the first four of the five stages I just mentioned is a choice. Even if my circumstances (whatever they are, and whether they're related to a ward or stake boundary change or unit creation or not) completely suck, that doesn't take away my ability to act rather than to be acted upon by choosing how I respond to that “suckiness.”

[Atheist Mormon]

On 7/10/2016 at 5:57 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 but no longer meet in the same building with a lot of friends. Recently I was tasked with finding inactive members, or to see if they still lived in our Ward boundaries. But no more...now in a new Ward.

 

This is a great recipe to self immolation.....Getting motivated to go to Church is hard enough, now losing my friends & acquittances, familiar faces?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

This is a great recipe to self immolation.....Getting motivated to go to Church is hard enough, now losing my friends & acquittances, familiar faces?

Nothing will keep me from going to Church. 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Nothing will keep me from going to Church. 

How bout an ice storm? Today our church was cancelled because of it. I saw some very happy people about that on FB, and in person. What does that say?

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

How bout an ice storm? Today our church was cancelled because of it. I saw some very happy people about that on FB, and in person. What does that say?

As did ours, but my response had nothing to do will ice storms...certain it would be silly to got to Church when no on is there. Also if they were there, I would not put my wife and I, if our roads were frozen over...as they are now. Our driveway is is 2/10 of a miles, down hill, and nothing but ice today. 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

As did ours, but my response had nothing to do will ice storms...certain it would be silly to got to Church when no on is there. Also if they were there, I would not put my wife and I, if our roads were frozen over...as they are now. Our driveway is is 2/10 of a miles, down hill, and nothing but ice today. 

I'm sorry for my snarkiness. 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How bout an ice storm? Today our church was cancelled because of it. I saw some very happy people about that on FB, and in person. What does that say?

I'm tempted to think that perhaps their priorities are a bit askew, but I'll stick to weeding my own garden. However, personally, I think, after an eighteen-months-and-counting "enforced" absence from my home ward due to scheduling conflicts, that the "take-a-'sabbatical'-from-church" crowd is nuts! 

[Yirgacheffe]

On 1/7/2017 at 10:39 AM, bsjkki said:

It upsets me and makes me angry. I was responding to Yirgacheffe who seems to think my comments about losing friendships over boundary changes and having concerns for the youth, make her angry. I may have misinterpreted her comments and that is why I asked.

It's not your comments about losing friendship over boundaries that makes me angry, it's children and teens having their friendships severed in this fashion that makes me angry.  I find it beyond understanding why children and teens who meet in the same buildings are unable to maintain friendships..  If the only thing the kids have in common is church attendance then it makes sense and any group of church kids will suffice but if it goes deeper than that it hurts kids.  I also do not understand why do adults not facilitate the children's friendships?  The last part baffles me not only are my kids friends important to them I like them and enjoy their company.  I just don't get it, you meet in the same building but because you don't meet at the same time you do not bother with your previous "friends" to me that is not friendship and when it comes to doing it to kids and teens it makes me angry.  And I am done on the subject.

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

This is a great recipe to self immolation.....Getting motivated to go to Church is hard enough, now losing my friends & acquittances, familiar faces?

Self-immolation?

Overstate much?  

No, I don't wish to diminish the value of friendships, relationships, brotherhood and sisterhood, and so on, or of the impact of boundary changes or new unit creation on them.  As big of a part as they might play in my motivation to go to church, however, they are not the main reasons why I go.  I go because, whoever else does or does not want me there (or whoever doesn't care either way), I believe God wants me there (not, of course, that I would expect you to understand that, Atheist). And I hope I can make it worth someone else's while to go, if only with a nod, a smile, or some other small gesture.

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:57 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Recently I was tasked with finding inactive members, or to see if they still lived in our Ward boundaries. But no more...now in a new Ward.

 

Perhaps you can be the "little leaven" that "leaveneth" this new "lump."  

[Atheist Mormon]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Self-immolation?

Overstate much?  

No, I don't wish to diminish the value of friendships, relationships, brotherhood and sisterhood, and so on, or of the impact of boundary changes or new unit creation on them.  As big of a part as they might play in my motivation to go to church, however, they are not the main reasons why I go.  I go because, whoever else does or does not want me there (or whoever doesn't care either way), I believe God wants me there (not, of course, that I would expect you to understand that, Atheist). And I hope I can make it worth someone else's while to go, if only with a nod, a smile, or some other small gesture.

Overstate much? If you think Church is established for it's own benefit & Glory then you are right.

Years later it downed on me this Church/any Church I attend was  established for my OWN benefit, for peoples benefit not other way around. Granted, while we go to worship God, without us Church would have no meaning for obvious reasons.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 10:33 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

We're still at the Stake level here. Stake Presidents have the final say on the creation of new wards and stakes? No one on the Area level or higher considers the issues involved, the needs which must be met, or the proffered reasons for adjusting boundaries and creating new units? Or if they do, they simply defer to the Stake President and to his proffered reasons for new unit creation and/or boundary adjustment?

Area and general approval is based on criteria. Among other things they consider data around questions of...how many active priesthood holders will be in the units? How many full tithe payers? How many total members & activity rates? 

So the stake knows how to sell a plan to the area leaders. They know how to package the proposal so that the numbers in each unit meet the general criteria. They talk about growth, full time missionaries serving etc etc. It is my experience in discussing this with my SP that the area authorities are looking at this like a business man ( I don't mean that in a negative way- but it is rational). Area leaders don't want to say "no" to the SP if he meets the criteria unless there is a strong, valid reason. Likewise, each step of the way I think deference is given to the decision of lower leaders and the criteria that had been established. Thus, the creating and reorganizing of units becomes a predictable process.

The SP works closely with the AA to follow the process. In some cases I've seen a proposal being denied and then restructured so that it is approved. For example, our SP worked for 4 years to split our stake but it was turned down so they submitted simpler proposals that affected individual units that could then tell the story better when they sought stake split the next time. And it worked.

[Kenngo1969]

Happy Jack Wagon,

So, essentially, those at the Area level and higher simply defer, sooner or later, to Stake Presidents.  Got it.  Thanks for clarifying.  This is still somewhat puzzling to me, though, because it posits an environment in which the only area affected by the division of the Stake is the area in which the original Stake existed in the first place. No boundaries outside the original Stake are altered, now new units are created outside the original Stake boundaries, et cetera.  One would think, if that were the case, that the creation of new Stakes would (or should) be much rarer than it is.

That runs contrary to my own (admittedly far second-hand) experience with the process, in which people on one side of the dividing line become members of one Stake while people on the other side of it become members of another, and so on.  In other words, at least two Stakes are affected.  Leaving inspiration totally aside for a moment, simply it does not seem to me to be good administrative practice to, essentially, leave a decision which will have affects far beyond the boundaries of his own stake to a single Stake President.

Also, no comment at all regarding the final paragraph of my previous post?

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Happy Jack Wagon,

So, essentially, those at the Area level and higher simply defer, sooner or later, to Stake Presidents.  Got it.  Thanks for clarifying.  This is still somewhat puzzling to me, though, because it posits an environment in which the only area affected by the division of the Stake is the area in which the original Stake existed in the first place. No boundaries outside the original Stake are altered, now new units are created outside the original Stake boundaries, et cetera.  One would think, if that were the case, that the creation of new Stakes would (or should) be much rarer than it is.

That runs contrary to my own (admittedly far second-hand) experience with the process, in which people on one side of the dividing line become members of one Stake while people on the other side of it become members of another, and so on.  In other words, at least two Stakes are affected.  Leaving inspiration totally aside for a moment, simply it does not seem to me to be good administrative practice to, essentially, leave a decision which will have affects far beyond the boundaries of his own stake to a single Stake President.

Also, no comment at all regarding the final paragraph of my previous post?

This really isn't complicated. Yes, if there are multiple stakes involved those SP will work together, follow the same criteria, make a recommendation to the AA. I don't think you're considering the totality of what I said. Most of what I've been talking about has been units within a stake but I have lesser experience with multi-stake changes.

Regarding the last paragraph of your previous post- Sure, we get to choose how we respond when outside forces act upon us but that doesn't necessarily change the reality that we were 1- acted upon and 2- have to deal with the aftermath of how the new reality is acting upon us.

Sure, we can get hit in the gut and say "thank you", or maybe try to dodge the punch the next time, or try to avoid the person who is punching altogether. There are limits to the options we have when others act upon us. None of us are truly independent actors. We're interdependent and  I'm not inclined to take a gut punch and then ask for more.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Happy Jack Wagon,

So, essentially, those at the Area level and higher simply defer, sooner or later, to Stake Presidents.  Got it.  Thanks for clarifying.  This is still somewhat puzzling to me, though, because it posits an environment in which the only area affected by the division of the Stake is the area in which the original Stake existed in the first place. No boundaries outside the original Stake are altered, now new units are created outside the original Stake boundaries, et cetera.  One would think, if that were the case, that the creation of new Stakes would (or should) be much rarer than it is.

That runs contrary to my own (admittedly far second-hand) experience with the process, in which people on one side of the dividing line become members of one Stake while people on the other side of it become members of another, and so on.  In other words, at least two Stakes are affected.  Leaving inspiration totally aside for a moment, simply it does not seem to me to be good administrative practice to, essentially, leave a decision which will have affects far beyond the boundaries of his own stake to a single Stake President.

Also, no comment at all regarding the final paragraph of my previous post?

This really isn't complicated. Yes, if there are multiple stakes involved those SP will work together, follow the same criteria, make a recommendation to the AA. I don't think you're considering the totality of what I said. Most of what I've been talking about has been units within a stake but I have lesser experience with multi-stake changes.

Regarding the last paragraph of your previous post- Sure, we get to choose how we respond when outside forces act upon us but that doesn't necessarily change the reality that we were 1- acted upon and 2- have to deal with the aftermath of how the new reality is acting upon us.

Sure, we can get hit in the gut and say "thank you", or maybe try to dodge the punch the next time, or try to avoid the person who is punching altogether. There are limits to the options we have when others act upon us. None of us are truly independent actors. We're interdependent and  I'm not inclined to take a gut punch and then ask for more.

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm tempted to think that perhaps their priorities are a bit askew, but I'll stick to weeding my own garden. However, personally, I think, after an eighteen-months-and-counting "enforced" absence from my home ward due to scheduling conflicts, that the "take-a-'sabbatical'-from-church" crowd is nuts! 

Could you elaborate on this a bit?