Mormon 95 thesis for our day

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She doesn't say it.  But she does imply it because she put up a list of 'wants' without doing any research.  Her opinion of them was all that she considered.  

And we need to understand that someone can have awesome intentions, and still be arrogant.  It doesn't mean someone is a horrible person.  It's just a weakness, like a million other weaknesses that we all struggle with.

I don't see the implication, sorry, I think you're being overly critical of a blog post, this wasn't an essay for a publication.  

Honestly, I think you're being overly sensitive to someone pointing out problems they have.  Open dialogue and discussion are good things and unfortunately we have a tendency in our culture to shun those who speak up about their concerns.  I think we need to give people the benefit of the doubt, hear them out and not take it personally.  

[Gray]

Just do the two hour block thing, and all the saints will rejoice. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

..................................................

I found this comment interesting in light of a podcast I recently listened to where Michael Quinn was talking about his new book.  His data was essentially showing how the church subsidizes every other country around the world, some to very great levels, I think the Philippines was the example where it was subsidized more than 9 of 10 dollars from HQ compared to the tithing they collect in that country.  He said that he expects the same in all developing countries. 

Yes.  That was a wonderful podcast yesterday, and all should  listen to or read it now -- http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/mormon-wealth-and-corporate-power .

Dr. Quinn made the point that only the Canadian and USA LDS units are self-sustaining (and then some), with billions of $ being sent annually to LDS units in foreign countries (including England), for general upkeep and the building of more chapels and temples.  Fully half the income of the LDS Church comes from commercial enterprises and investments, which are apparently very well managed and lucrative.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  That was a wonderful podcast yesterday, and all should  listen to or read it now -- http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/mormon-wealth-and-corporate-power .

Dr. Quinn made the point that only the Canadian and USA LDS units are self-sustaining (and then some), with billions of $ being sent annually to LDS units in foreign countries (including England), for general upkeep and the building of more chapels and temples.  Fully half the income of the LDS Church comes from commercial enterprises and investments, which are apparently very well managed and lucrative.

I agree completely.  I'm an advocate for more financial transparency, and I think much of that transparency will show good things the church is doing with its funds out there.  It will invite questions as well I'm sure.  I view all members of who contribute to the church as stakeholders in the church and I think we are entitled to knowing how the funds of the church are being used. 

If Quinn is right that the church brings in approximately $50B annually in revenue, this would put the church at #59 on the fortune 500 list of companies ranked by annual revenue, right in between Hewlett Packard and Cisco.  Thinking about that for a minute is quite a sobering thought.  

http://fortune.com/fortune500/list

 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think there could be benefits from both.  Why have other countries sing american songs and not do the opposite.  I think we could all be enriched through the sharing of culture in music and in other ways.  

 Our hymnbook already includes songs from other cultures, although with latter day saint themes.

the old English folk song Dives and Lazarus seems to be a hit among LDS as well as Scotland the Brave.

 

I personally enjoy the Mormon tabernacles rendering of the tune to John Brown's Body

 

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Danzo

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see the implication, sorry, I think you're being overly critical of a blog post, this wasn't an essay for a publication.  

Honestly, I think you're being overly sensitive to someone pointing out problems they have.  Open dialogue and discussion are good things and unfortunately we have a tendency in our culture to shun those who speak up about their concerns.  I think we need to give people the benefit of the doubt, hear them out and not take it personally.  

First, what's the difference between a blog post and an essay for publication really?  Both are put out to the public, for the public to consider, right?  

Second, why is it bad for someone to say that someone else's blog seems arrogant but o.k. for you to say that someone's negative reaction to that blog 'overly critical' and 'overly sensitive'?    

Like you said, open dialogue and discussion are important.  Does that only apply to the church?

My concern is that when she created the list, it does not appear that she took anything into consideration other than her own opinion on each point.  Given that people have already pointed out the many times in the list that her 'changes' either already existed in some form, wouldn't work, or took only her own thoughts in consideration, that does not seem like an unreasonable concern.

Edited November 2, 2017 by bluebell

[ksfisher]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Just do the two hour block thing, and all the saints will rejoice. 

Because we are so busy that we don't have three hours a week available to devote to Sunday worship with our fellow saints? 

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First, what's the difference between a blog post and an essay for publication really?  Both are put out to the public, for the public to consider, right?  

Second, why is it bad for someone to say that someone else's blog seems arrogant but o.k. for you to say that someone's negative reaction to that blog 'overly critical' and 'overly sensitive'?    

Like you said, open dialogue and discussion are important.  Does that only apply to the church?

My concern is that it does not appear that when she created the list, it does not appear that she took anything into consideration other than her own opinion on each point.  Given that people have already pointed out the many times in the list that her 'changes' either already existed in some form, wouldn't work, or took only her own thoughts in consideration, that does not seem like an unreasonable concern.

Formal vs. informal, scholarly vs. amateur, audiences and expectations are different.  Same thing with internet comments on a message board like this, all of which are public, but have vast differences.  

You have a right to say that you think she was being arrogant, I'm not trying to take that away from you, I was just asking for you to support that claim with evidence.  I'm not trying to shut you down at all.  I disagree with your point, so I'm asking you to support why you made the claim.  It sounds like you didn't take "anything into consideration other than" your "own opinion" on this. 

Its obvious that this list contained her opinions, she even had a couple items on the list that she outright said she wasn't sure if this was accurate.  So my expectations were that this list is not an exhaustively researched list of well vetted critiques with peer reviewed perspectives.  Its an opinion piece is all, and I thought it interesting especially because of the female perspective on many topics.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Just do the two hour block thing, and all the saints will rejoice. 

I think they might actually see an increase in attendance if they reduced the meetings to a two hour block.  I've heard rumors that they've trialed this in some areas, but I don't know how substantial those were.  I would love to know what the results of those trials have been.  Honestly, I think it would be a win/win for the members and the church.  

[Alan]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Some Christian traditions also have closed communion, meaning that only members can participate, are you in favor of that as well? 

Personally, I'm not in favor of either strict time requirements or closing participation based on membership myself, I prefer opening things up and including as many people as possible.  

Technically, we should also have closed communion because one cannot renew a covenant one hasn't made.

[Alan]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Personally I'll always give parents of young children a pass on this one.  Sometimes, as hard as you might try to be on time, things just don't work out.  A diaper needs to be changed, etc.  Also parents who've taken their children out into the foyer because they're not being reverent.  I think those groups of people should always receive the sacrament no matter where they're seated.

Otherwise I agree with you.  The sacrament is important and we should plan our time so as to be on time.

We raised 5 children and didn't miss sacrament that I can remember.

Parents who take their children out because they're not being reverent should teach them to be reverent. I attended a Catholic mass recently... no problems there.

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 Our hymnbook already includes songs from other cultures, although with latter day saint themes.

the old English folk song Dives and Lazarus seems to be a hit among LDS as well as Scotland the Brave.

I personally enjoy the Mormon tabernacles rendering of the tune to John Brown's Body

While I can't speak for other countries in Canada they usually have inserts with uniquely Canadian hymns such as O Canada (for use on Canada Day). If a ward or stake wanted to add songs there's no reason they couldn't do something similar. I don't know if there's a church policy on that though. I do agree that for other countries having more local songs would be a big benefit. Indeed I've long been an advocate for allowing more local uniqueness into stakes. I think that particularly in places like Africa or Asia it'd help Church growth a great deal. I don't want to abandon correlation, but perhaps temper it somewhat for local culture would be extremely valuable.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Just do the two hour block thing, and all the saints will rejoice. 

As I think I've mentioned a few times they did do some tests on that around 10 or so years ago. My understanding (which isn't much) is that it caused a lot of problems as most people do the minimum religiously. i.e. they're not studying scriptures on their own, often aren't doing family home evening, etc. Particularly for children this has a big effect.

I think the real issue most people have isn't with the length of Church so much as how boring Church is. While I'm convinced a big part of that is because the best teachers often are needed in other callings there are definitely things the Church could do. I'd like to see Sacrament shortened from 1:10 hours to maybe 40 minutes. Have the announcements, sacrament (which is the most important part), a hymn, and either two short talks or one long talk, and then the closing song. That'd ease the burden on kids - especially ADHD or related kids - as well as open up more time for practical things.

While it's too early to say how changes to Priesthood and Relief Society will turn out, I like that they're rethinking things. Honestly it's Sunday School that surprisingly needs the most work. A switch from a chronological study of scriptures to a topic study would be beneficial in my opinion. Especially with alternating between doctrinal and practical topics.

There are issues with this of course. There's inherently a problem with the typical Mormon corridor meeting house where three wards are meeting. If you cut down Sacrament there's no room for people to go to classes. Which is why I suspect ultimately Sacrament never has been shortened. The extra 10 minutes avoids hallway congestion with both wards in the hallway. So even if it would be beneficial it may be difficult to do many places simply due to logistic issues.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Alan said:

We raised 5 children and didn't miss sacrament that I can remember.

Parents who take their children out because they're not being reverent should teach them to be reverent. I attended a Catholic mass recently... no problems there.

What about a baby that poops through their clothes right before the parents are set to leave for church? 

What about a parent who takes a potty training child out because they are hollaring “I have to potty!”?

Or parents who take a baby out because they are shrieking at the top of the lungs?  (Babies can’t learn to be reverent). 

Can you conceive of no legitimate reason that someone might not be in the chapel when the sacrament starts?

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Alan said:

Technically, we should also have closed communion because one cannot renew a covenant one hasn't made.

I see the gospel as being more inclusive and more open I guess.   

[JAHS]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

62.  Open up sealing ceremonies to everyone, regardless of “worthiness.”  I don’t think we need to perform sealing ceremonies for everybody, but let family members and friends witness the ceremony and celebrate with their loved ones.

I very much doubt this will ever happen.  I wouldn't mind though if they allowed civil ceremonies that all could attend and sealing afterwards without the year wait, like it is done in other parts of the world now.

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, Alan said:

We raised 5 children and didn't miss sacrament that I can remember.

Parents who take their children out because they're not being reverent should teach them to be reverent. I attended a Catholic mass recently... no problems there.

Good job!

 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As I think I've mentioned a few times they did do some tests on that around 10 or so years ago. My understanding (which isn't much) is that it caused a lot of problems as most people do the minimum religiously. i.e. they're not studying scriptures on their own, often aren't doing family home evening, etc. Particularly for children this has a big effect.

I'm interested in what perceived problems they saw from the tests around this.  It sounds like you're saying the problems were with long term commitment problems with retention for the church?  My instincts tell me that weekly attendance would improve as 2 hrs isn't as big of a commitment/sacrifice, so I could see people attending more on a weekly basis. 

I'm not sure what you mean by people doing the minimum religiously, are you saying that because many people don't study their scriptures with a 3 hr block that this somehow gets even worse in a 2 hr block scenario and they study even less?  What is the impact on children, can you elaborate?  

[Jeanne]

Just now, JAHS said:

I very much doubt this will ever happen.  I wouldn't mind though if they allowed civil ceremonies that all could attend and sealing afterwards without the year wait, like it is done in other parts of the world now.

From one who walked outside with her mother..at my brothers wedding inside the Temple..this.  This is my greatest hope for those in the LDS faith.  No one should cry when son/daughter is being married inside a Temple.. no. one.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What about a baby that poops through their clothes right before the parents are set to leave for church? 

What about a parent who takes a potty training child out because they are hollaring “I have to potty!”?

Or parents who take a baby out because they are shrieking at the top of the lungs?  (Babies can’t learn to be reverent). 

Can you conceive of no legitimate reason that someone might not be in the chapel when the sacrament starts?

In one of the sabbath day training videos (I don't remember which) Elder Cook comments that parents who have to take their children out of the chapel should not miss out on the sacrament.

[JAHS]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would change the talk on tithing in our manuals to reflect the original from Lorenzo Snow...

“I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman, and child who has the means shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.” (Conference Report Oct. 1899, 28)

And not cut out words as in the quote below, that is in the Lesson Manual Chapter 12:

“I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing”

One for the thesis...no more ellipses, give it to us how it was originally meant. 

OK, but just so members understand that is how it was meant for the saints living at that time; not as instructed by our current living prophets. 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I very much doubt this will ever happen.  I wouldn't mind though if they allowed civil ceremonies that all could attend and sealing afterwards without the year wait, like it is done in other parts of the world now.

I see nothing doctrinal that would prohibit this change.  I think this would be an amazing thing for non temple recommend holding family and friends, it could really help build bridges.  I also think it could increase positive exposure for the church and may lead to more conversions. Honestly out of all 95 things, this one would be in my top 5.  

Edited November 2, 2017 by hope_for_things

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm interested in what perceived problems they saw from the tests around this.  It sounds like you're saying the problems were with long term commitment problems with retention for the church?  My instincts tell me that weekly attendance would improve as 2 hrs isn't as big of a commitment/sacrifice, so I could see people attending more on a weekly basis. 

I'm not sure what you mean by people doing the minimum religiously, are you saying that because many people don't study their scriptures with a 3 hr block that this somehow gets even worse in a 2 hr block scenario and they study even less?  What is the impact on children, can you elaborate?  

My gut feeling is that reducing Sunday worship time would not improve attendance.  There are already many people who leave after sacrament meeting.

Reduced expectations might even lead to reduced attendance.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

From one who walked outside with her mother..at my brothers wedding inside the Temple..this.  This is my greatest hope for those in the LDS faith.  No one should cry when son/daughter is being married inside a Temple.. no. one.

Totally agree, lets make temple marriage a joyful event everyone involved.  To me, this is like the revelation to Peter that the gospel can be preached to the gentiles after all.  Open it up, and let everyone participate.  

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Honestly it's Sunday School that surprisingly needs the most work. A switch from a chronological study of scriptures to a topic study would be beneficial in my opinion. Especially with alternating between doctrinal and practical topics.

 

I actually don't like the new youth Sunday School curriculum and would not like to see the adult lessons head the same way.  One of the powerful ways that the scriptures teach is through telling stories.  The change to topical study would seem to be a move away from learning the stories that are told in the scriptures and risk adding more and more proof texting.  I find the scripture much more enjoyable and instructive when I understand a particular verses place within a story rather than just an isolated statement.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My gut feeling is that reducing Sunday worship time would not improve attendance.  There are already many people who leave after sacrament meeting.

Reduced expectations might even lead to reduced attendance.

I would love more experimentation.  Perhaps 3 hours isn't the sweet spot, they could certainly do studies and trials to determine the optimum number of hours for participation rates.   Maybe 5 hours would increase participation rates?  Let the data determine the optimum amount of time for the maximum benefit.