Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[Button Gwinnett]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Seriously.  How would that even be possible?  I spend hours every week dealing/planning/thinking about YW stuff.  Our ward council spends about 20 minutes a month dealing with YW stuff.  

For at least the past 20 years, that I am personally aware of,  the church has been actively trying to elevate the importance of Ward Counsels.  I believe that there are many reasons for doing so but at the forefront is the desire on the part of the church to give women a leadership voice in the ward decision making processes.  But many wards, despite these efforts on the part of the church, have failed miserably in reaching the desired goals.  I've heard it likened to herding cats. 

When women are given an equal voice in a ward and reach the level of being valued councilors to a bishop, miracles happen.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. That is, one serving in a calling with hear and soul doesn't have to, or shouldn't mean, that they don't want the ward to succeed. Or, even that they aren't part of the larger vision of the ward. 

And even if one strives to "survey large fields, while cultivating smaller plots" (my first mission president's analogy), I still can't see someone actually seeing herself as member of the ward council first, and president of her auxiliary second. No matter how amazing you or the WC is.

I get what you are saying, though. And, I have been mulling this counsel over.

I agree.

Every organization needs their champion. The president of that organization is the champion, looking specifically to meet the needs of that particular group. Yes, they have responsibilities as part of the broader ward council, but they are not sustained as ward council members. They are not set apart as ward council members. EQ Presidents do not receive keys for the ward council. People are called, sustained, set apart, and given keys according to their calling as a President, not a ward council member.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

For at least the past 20 years, that I am personally aware of,  the church has been actively trying to elevate the importance of Ward Counsels.  I believe that there are many reasons for doing so but at the forefront is the desire on the part of the church to give women a leadership voice in the ward decision making processes.  But many wards, despite these efforts on the part of the church, have failed miserably in reaching the desired goals.  I've heard it likened to herding cats. 

When women are given an equal voice in a ward and reach the level of being valued councilors to a bishop, miracles happen.

I think most of the problem in our ward is that 90% of ward counsel time is spent on missionary and less active stuff (which is great and i'm not complaining).  But since we only have 2 less active girls in YW's (which we already visit and contact regularly), and the handful of nonmembers that come to activities are also already incorporated into the group, very little of that is focused on young women.

Each woman's auxiliary group has a hand in missionary work, but it's not what the majority of our time or effort is usually spent on.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think most of the problem in our ward is that 90% of ward counsel time is spent on missionary and less active stuff (which is great and i'm not complaining).  But since we only have 2 less active girls in YW's (which we already visit and contact regularly), and the handful of nonmembers that come to activities are also already incorporated into the group, very little of that is focused on young women.

Each woman's auxiliary group has a hand in missionary work, but it's not what the majority of our time or effort is usually spent on.

Perhaps it's a blessing that your ward can spend so much time on missionary work.  Half of our ward councils seem to be taken up by welfare/self-reliance issues.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps it's a blessing that your ward can spend so much time on missionary work.  Half of our ward councils seem to be taken up by welfare/self-reliance issues.

From what i've heard, we have very very little of that, which is kind of odd because our ward is middle class but we also incorporate a trailer park that is mostly lower income families.

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think most of the problem in our ward is that 90% of ward counsel time is spent on missionary and less active stuff (which is great and i'm not complaining).  

In my years of experience in ward councils and as the executive secretary, that was about how I saw it, too. For that reason, I'm sure I am at least an occasional topic of discussion in ward council.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. That is, one serving in a calling with hear and soul doesn't have to, or shouldn't mean, that they don't want the ward to succeed. Or, even that they aren't part of the larger vision of the ward. 

And even if one strives to "survey large fields, while cultivating smaller plots" (my first mission president's analogy), I still can't see someone actually seeing herself as member of the ward council first, and president of her auxiliary second. No matter how amazing you or the WC is.

I get what you are saying, though. And, I have been mulling this counsel over.

If the Church leadership is serious about this, perhaps some thought should be given to revising the manner in which calls are made and settings apart are conducted, perhaps along this line:

"We call you to be a member of the ward council with the assignment to preside over the ______________ organization."

This would be comparable to how Elder Bednar says mission calls are issued. The individual is called first and foremost as a missionary and secondarily with the "assignment" to serve in a certain mission.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  That doesn't change the facts that I stated.  Teachings have changed (I'm still not sure why some have an issue with admitting that).

Perhaps it seems that way toyou because the argument has drifted from "all doctrines change" (very debatable) to "some teachings have changed" (which no one disputes).

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From what i've heard, we have very very little of that, which is kind of odd because our ward is middle class but we also incorporate a trailer park that is mostly lower income families.

Sounds like your bishop has chosen to focus the ward councils efforts on missionary work and he's taking care of the welfare issues.

[bluebell]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Sounds like your bishop has chosen to focus the ward councils efforts on missionary work and he's taking care of the welfare issues.

That could be.  I've heard from others in the past that our ward does not spend much money on welfare issues.  For example, my husband is a handy guy and contacted the bishop a year ago to see if the ward would purchase the materials for our neighbor (a recently divorced single mom) to be able to fix the windows on her car so they would go up and down again.  He would do the work himself but he wanted the ward to buy the motors (a cost of a couple of hundred of dollars I think).  The bishop jumped at the chance, and one of the counselors mentioned to my hubby that the ward had been asked by the stake to spend more money on welfare issues and they were looking for opportunities to do so.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps it seems that way toyou because the argument has drifted from "all doctrines change" (very debatable) to "some teachings have changed" (which no one disputes).

Well getting anyone to really define what constitutes doctrine is a problem too (that seems to have changed and evolved as well).  Some get caught up on what the difference is between doctrine, teachings, policies, etc.  That is another discussion for another thread though (as to not go more off topic here on rongo's).

Brigham Young very clearly considered his Adam God doctrine to be church doctrine (look up the statement that Orson Pratt was required to make in order to avoid church discipline).  Yet now many claim it was never really doctrine.  Well, the Prophet at the time considered it to be church doctrine.

From your list given earlier in the thread, many changes have been discussed and posted here.  Also look at the thread that hope_for_things started as an off shoot regarding baptism.  

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

That could be.  I've heard from others in the past that our ward does not spend much money on welfare issues.  For example, my husband is a handy guy and contacted the bishop a year ago to see if the ward would purchase the materials for our neighbor (a recently divorced single mom) to be able to fix the windows on her car so they would go up and down again.  He would do the work himself but he wanted the ward to buy the motors (a cost of a couple of hundred of dollars I think).  The bishop jumped at the chance, and one of the counselors mentioned to my hubby that the ward had been asked by the stake to spend more money on welfare issues and they were looking for opportunities to do so.

That's interesting. I have a friend in a bishopric, and they were helping a single mom with cancer to pay her bills and feed her kids. They were specifically singled out ("berated" was the word he used) by a visiting general authority for spending more than other wards in the stake. Is there some standard of how much should be spent? I always assumed the money just went into a large pool that was used to take care of needs as they arose, with poorer wards likely to spend more than they brought in.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's interesting. I have a friend in a bishopric, and they were helping a single mom with cancer to pay her bills and feed her kids. They were specifically singled out ("berated" was the word he used) by a visiting general authority for spending more than other wards in the stake. Is there some standard of how much should be spent? I always assumed the money just went into a large pool that was used to take care of needs as they arose, with poorer wards likely to spend more than they brought in.

For years, North America has run a FO deficit. This recent meeting noted an increase in donations, with spending remaining the same, which may or may not indicate a surplus now. We have been told in the past that the 3rd World is consistently a net FO contributor, and not a consumer like North America.

I don't think Salt Lake gets involved unless something jumps out at them. Health care expenditures over $5000 need general authority approval, so you would be flagged for writing a check for $5000 for that without authorization. I think anything above a rent/house payment would trigger a close look. 

In my experience, I only help people when it will help them. Many people aren't living self-reliance principles, and they won't unless they have to. Paying their bills only keeps the wolves at bay until you refuse to pay them, so you are in essence postponing the beginning of them learning self-reliance by helping them (this is in general; as with all things, circumstances and the Spirit should be followed). 

What I find is that when the Church doesn't help people who shouldn't be helped, they move themselves into a situation where they are more likely to be able to be self-reliant. Offering the assistance enables them to artificially stay where they wouldn't be able to live without it (akin to government subsidies). kfisher once joked that the people who leave my ward move to his . . .  It was also interesting to me that his stake was forbidden from paying for extended-stay hotels. I find them to be a cost-effective and effective way to take care of basic needs for a short time while people get their act together (e.g., eviction or foreclosure). I don't do it all the time (and haven't for years), but if someone is in a bind and needs to move on rather than have the Church keep them afloat, it's cheaper than paying their rent/mortgage. 

My ward is an outlier in my stake with a consistent FO surplus. When my dad was a YSA bishop, they consistently had surpluses as well, while the stake overall were in the red.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

For years, North America has run a FO deficit. This recent meeting noted an increase in donations, with spending remaining the same, which may or may not indicate a surplus now. We have been told in the past that the 3rd World is consistently a net FO contributor, and not a consumer like North America.

I don't think Salt Lake gets involved unless something jumps out at them. Health care expenditures over $5000 need general authority approval, so you would be flagged for writing a check for $5000 for that without authorization. I think anything above a rent/house payment would trigger a close look. 

In my experience, I only help people when it will help them. Many people aren't living self-reliance principles, and they won't unless they have to. Paying their bills only keeps the wolves at bay until you refuse to pay them, so you are in essence postponing the beginning of them learning self-reliance by helping them (this is in general; as with all things, circumstances and the Spirit should be followed). 

What I find is that when the Church doesn't help people who shouldn't be helped, they move themselves into a situation where they are more likely to be able to be self-reliant. Offering the assistance enables them to artificially stay where they wouldn't be able to live without it (akin to government subsidies). kfisher once joked that the people who leave my ward move to his . . .  It was also interesting to me that his stake was forbidden from paying for extended-stay hotels. I find them to be a cost-effective and effective way to take care of basic needs for a short time while people get their act together (e.g., eviction or foreclosure). I don't do it all the time (and haven't for years), but if someone is in a bind and needs to move on rather than have the Church keep them afloat, it's cheaper than paying their rent/mortgage. 

My ward is an outlier in my stake with a consistent FO surplus. When my dad was a YSA bishop, they consistently had surpluses as well, while the stake overall were in the red.

My friend's ward wasn't running a deficit, just spending more (temporarily) because a sister in the ward was in dire straits and needed help. Having been involved in these kinds of things, I know each bishop is different, and each does his best to help people when they are in need. It's one of the things I admire about the church. I just didn't know if there was some standard of how much should be spent. My friend said they were taken by surprise by the public criticism, since no one had said anything to them about their expenditures before in public or in private. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

. kfisher once joked that the people who leave my ward move to his . . .  It was also interesting to me that his stake was forbidden from paying for extended-stay hotels. I find them to be a cost-effective and effective way to take care of basic needs for a short time while people get their act together (e.g., eviction or foreclosure). I don't do it all the time (and haven't for years), but if someone is in a bind and needs to move on rather than have the Church keep them afloat, it's cheaper than paying their rent/mortgage. 

 

We're not forbidden to, but our bishop has set that policy.  Several other bishops in the stake also have a similar policy.  The reason for this is that it gets around that a bishop will pay for hotels and you get a flood of people asking for assistance for hotel rooms.

 

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 I always assumed the money just went into a large pool that was used to take care of needs as they arose, with poorer wards likely to spend more than they brought in.

The money does all go into one big pot that all bishops draw from.  The church is, however, getting more serious about this self-reliance thing.  Last year at stake conference in speaking with the stake president the visiting 70 related that Mexico City is breaking even on fast offering donations vs expenditures.  In speaking with the bishoprics the stake president urged us to start working towards this goal.  Not sure how it can be done as our ward, which spends less FO funds than other wards in the stake, runs around a 10 to 1 deficit. 

It would be a good goal to work towards though.

Edited September 22, 2017 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's interesting. I have a friend in a bishopric, and they were helping a single mom with cancer to pay her bills and feed her kids. They were specifically singled out ("berated" was the word he used) by a visiting general authority for spending more than other wards in the stake. Is there some standard of how much should be spent? I always assumed the money just went into a large pool that was used to take care of needs as they arose, with poorer wards likely to spend more than they brought in.

I have no idea how it works.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The money does all go into one big pot that all bishops draw from.  The church is, however, getting more serious about this self-reliance thing.  Last year at stake conference in speaking with the stake president the visiting 70 related that Mexico City is breaking even on fast offering donations vs expenditures.  In speaking with the bishoprics the stake president urged us to start working towards this goal.  Not sure how it can be done as our ward, which spends less FO funds than other wards in the stake, runs around a 10 to 1 deficit. 

It would be a good goal to work towards though.

I think many North Americans have a much different definition of necessities. They feel that the Church is heartless if it won't ensure that they aren't late on any bills, won't have utilities disconnected, and won't be evicted or foreclosed on. The mindset of many is that fast offerings are a backstop or safety net they can turn to if they get behind on things, which usually means that they spend their money on things they want to and look to the Church to meet their obligations. When they have this expectation, they can get really upset when they're told that you are not going to help them. 

When it is obvious that they will not be able to continue to live here with the resources they have, I explain/show them what I would do if I were in their situation. i.e., if we were being evicted, then we would need to find a place to move to and figure out how to do it with the resources we have. They usually try to convince you to just pay their bills "one last time," and you have to explain and show how that doesn't actually help them because they will be in the exact same situation next month. Better to deal with the inevitable instead of kicking the can down the road. Many adults, like teenagers, avoid thinking of down-the-road consequences. They want the Church to keep them afloat for one more month, and they figure they'll come and try to get to re-up again next month. Not unlike the government with the raising of the debt ceiling . . . 

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The money does all go into one big pot that all bishops draw from.  The church is, however, getting more serious about this self-reliance thing.  Last year at stake conference in speaking with the stake president the visiting 70 related that Mexico City is breaking even on fast offering donations vs expenditures.  In speaking with the bishoprics the stake president urged us to start working towards this goal.  Not sure how it can be done as our ward, which spends less FO funds than other wards in the stake, runs around a 10 to 1 deficit. 

It would be a good goal to work towards though.

Seems to me one has to balance feeding the poor with wisely managing the church's money. Maybe the answer is for people to be more generous with their fast offerings.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps it seems that way toyou because the argument has drifted from "all doctrines change" (very debatable) to "some teachings have changed" (which no one disputes).

 

 

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well getting anyone to really define what constitutes doctrine is a problem too (that seems to have changed and evolved as well).  Some get caught up on what the difference is between doctrine, teachings, policies, etc.  That is another discussion for another thread though (as to not go more off topic here on rongo's).

Brigham Young very clearly considered his Adam God doctrine to be church doctrine (look up the statement that Orson Pratt was required to make in order to avoid church discipline).  Yet now many claim it was never really doctrine.  Well, the Prophet at the time considered it to be church doctrine.

From your list given earlier in the thread, many changes have been discussed and posted here.  Also look at the thread that hope_for_things started as an off shoot regarding baptism.  

The challenge from Hope_for_Things was this:

Quote

Pick a doctrine, and I would put money on any doctrine you pick that in 100 years from now it will have changed substantively.  Doctrines evolve, get discarded, are deemphasized, new ideas emerge.  Change will happen whether you want it to or not, and history our guide that this is true.  Feeling that something will "never change" is delusional thinking.  

In response, I listed several core doctrines that I believe haven't changed in the last 100 years (that was his arbitrary time period).

There has been some quibbling here over some of them, but I stand by my list as being a selection of core doctrines that are not subject to change.

You can cherry pick some quirky things like Adam-God (which wasn't no my list) and you can quibble over whether this or that isolated quote constitutes doctrine, but the core remains the same, including the doctrines pertaining to the eternity of a family unit and its associated definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems to me one has to balance feeding the poor with wisely managing the church's money. Maybe the answer is for people to be more generous with their fast offerings.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

The Church has its operating costs that pertain to its core mission. These are paid primarily from tithing. Regarding helping the poor and needy, the Church acts as an agent to disburse the fast offering and humanitarian funds that people choose to donate. So if one thinks the Church is not doing enough to help the needy, one should donate or increase donations to the fast offering and humanitarian funds.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The challenge from Hope_for_Things was this:

In response, I listed several core doctrines that I believe haven't changed in the last 100 years (that was his arbitrary time period).

There has been some quibbling here over some of them, but I stand by my list as being a selection of core doctrines that are not subject to change.

You can cherry pick some quirky things like Adam-God (which wasn't no my list) and you can quibble over whether this or that isolated quote constitutes doctrine, but the core remains the same, including the doctrines pertaining to the eternity of a family unit and its associated definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I though that baptism was a good example, since it's changed in how it's both understood and practiced in the church from how it used to be.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

The Church has its operating costs that pertain to its core mission. These are paid primarily from tithing. Regarding helping the poor and needy, the Church acts as an agent to disburse the fast offering and humanitarian funds that people choose to donate. So if one thinks the Church is not doing enough to help the needy, one should donate or increase donations to the fast offering and humanitarian funds.

As far as I know, there's never been a suggested amount for fast offerings. We always did 10% tithing and 1% fast offering. That's probably on the low side, I'm guessing, but that was what we agreed when we got married (we were dirt poor then).

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I though that baptism was a good example, since it's changed in how it's both understood and practiced in the church from how it used to be.

Yes, as has the understanding of the nature and roles of the Godhead.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The challenge from Hope_for_Things was this:

In response, I listed several core doctrines that I believe haven't changed in the last 100 years (that was his arbitrary time period).

I'd recommend taking this part of the discussion over to the new thread where doctrinal changes are being discussed (and you are mentioned in the OP since hope_for-things is directly responding to your request, but started a new thread to keep this one on topic):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69611-baptism-doctrinal-evolution/

(You may have already joined in or responded there....I haven't checked recently or read all of the posts).

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson