Mormon 95 thesis for our day

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Do you know of a country that would licence a private kitchen? Honestly, I've never looked into it. Just imagine the extra workload governments employees would have if they needed to inspect every church kitchen from every religion. Glad I work in the states.

My information may be out of date.  It appears, for example, that Florida changed its rules several years ago.

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/hr/FAQ-ChurchKitchens.html

It is possible that insurance issues (including self insurance where the Church is allowed to do that and so chooses) may be the main reason currently for the warming only policy.  I remember back in the 80s being disappointed I couldn't use actual lit candles for a Primary class.  I was told such restrictions were to cut down on potential damages.

I will have to see if Canada has changed.  There was a license that allowed certain things posted in the ward kitchen there, iirc. (I don't rule out that my memory is confused).

[Calm]

Could the fact that the Church has the intent to often have nonmembers as well as members at church gatherings make a difference?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2011/12/a-real-church-health-inspection/

This seems to state there are variations on what qualifies as "commercial Church kitchen":

https://churchexecutive.com/archives/commercial-church-kitchens

Edited November 3, 2017 by Calm

[Rain]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe this depends on location.

And if so, it makes sense to me to have a Church wide policy so mistakes are less likely to be made given the often mobile membership that may carry practices with  them when they move.

 

51 minutes ago, filovirus said:

 Perhaps. We use the same health code as 46 other states. It's the national code. I'd be surprised if the other few states did things differently than is in that regard. Maybe other countries. The distinction is private vs public.

Heck, we licence movie theatres that only serve soda with ice. Size and ability of a kitchen is a non factor for licensure. 

So is the rule actually in the handbook? 15-20 years ago I poured through the handbook trying to find it since I was activities chair. At that time I never could find it. When I asked I was told it was "probably" in the letters they send out from time to time.

 

[filovirus]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could the fact that the Church has the intent to often have nonmembers as well as members at church gatherings make a difference?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2011/12/a-real-church-health-inspection/

This seems to state there are variations on what qualifies as "commercial Church kitchen":

https://churchexecutive.com/archives/commercial-church-kitchens

Not likely. They are still invited guests and maintain the private event. Other facilities that are considered private, that we do not inspect include: Brotherhood sites like the Eagles, Elks, Lions clubs. Senior apartments with an onsite kitchen that provides meals for it's residents. Wineries and growler filler sites. Juice bars in fitness membership locations (24 hour fitness, gold's gym, etc). Those, as well as churches, are considered private kitchens.

But as soon as it is open to the public, they would either need a full license, or a temporary event license. Many churches do temporary events. Such as a community Thanksgiving dinner that is open to everyone. We will go out on the day of the event to inspect for each and every temporary event. Other churches do weekly community dinners for the needy, and they would need a full kitchen license.

We turn a blind eye to the neighborhood kids selling lemonade (technically they need a temporary restaurant license) and to people preparing food in their home to bring to the local homeless hangouts (technically they would need to prepare the food in licensed facility). We do not license home kitchens, and food prepared in a home kitchen cannot be sold to the public.

[Amulek]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

So is the rule actually in the handbook? 15-20 years ago I poured through the handbook trying to find it since I was activities chair. At that time I never could find it. When I asked I was told it was "probably" in the letters they send out from time to time.

Our building used to have a plaque / sign which had language to this affect, but it looks like it's in the handbook now (if it wasn't before). 

From Handbook 2, 21.2.11:

Serving Areas

The serving area in Church meetinghouses is not intended for food preparation or cooking unless it is part of a lesson, demonstration, or other instruction. When food is to be served in the building or on the grounds, it should be prepared elsewhere and brought to the meetinghouse, where it may be kept warm or cold until it is served.

[filovirus]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

So is the rule actually in the handbook? 15-20 years ago I poured through the handbook trying to find it since I was activities chair. At that time I never could find it. When I asked I was told it was "probably" in the letters they send out from time to time.

 

My guess is cost and insurance. A fume hood and a grease trap would probably be needed. Fume hoods are not cheep. Insurance prices would go up.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Speaking for myself, again I disagree, and if you haven’t read Taylor Petrey’s article from Dialogue from a few years back I recommend you consider it.  Certainly some change would have to happen with the current positions of the Church including to the proclamation, but nothing fundamentally important to core doctrines would need to change.  

I'm sorry, but Mister Petrey is quite wrong.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You have to really earn your membership to this club, as opposed to the “I-can’t-do-anything-but-praise-the-brethren-and-their-propaganda-club”, which really only requires that you check your brain at the entrance.  Ironically we’re both members of the same church, fancy that.  

"Check your brain at the entrance." So are you saying that turning off my brain is an essential prerequisite to disagreeing with you, or only to genuinely sustaining the Lord's anointed servants?

No wonder you have such a hard time recognising arrogance among your chosen elite. It's a bit like a fish not noticing that the ocean is wet.

I know who they are; I sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators. Who has sustained you to those roles?

I understand that of course the guidance the Lord vouchsafes them is going to differ from popular societal views. Nobody needs special revelation to figure out what anyone can learn by opening a newspaper. (Or by consulting their own oh-so-fashionable trendy-leftie prejudices.)

OTOH, it doesn't really take a whole lot of brainpower to join the "herd of independent thinkers," either.

I'm sure you are a member of the Church. Do you think it is more noble to oppose the Church from the inside?
 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this was his attempt to accuse me of reverse bias against men, which is an odd phenomenon in such a patriarchal society.  

No, it was my attempt to point out that it's stupid to assume that a man routinely ignores a woman because she's not a man.

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This really speaks to updating the manuals taking into account scholarship relating to scripture.  I'm all for it.  To me the current method of Sunday School for adults is much more about proof texts being read and much less about understanding the scriptures, what they mean.  Such would require a focused effort on keeping abrest of what scholars have been saying about the scriptures.

I'm less interested in what scholars have been saying and more interested in what the spirit says

[filovirus]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I'm less interested in what scholars have been saying and more interested in what the spirit says

This. I can study scholarship on my own time, which I do. Church is more for edification. An institute class on scholarship would be a good alternative.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I didn't know that was a policy. It's definitely one broken pretty regularly.

Well, maybe I am misinformed.

[strappinglad]

My Stake center and other buildings are designated as evacuation centers and the kitchens are formally inspected a couple of times a year by government authorities. At our last meeting it was impressed upon us that during an evacuation situation, NO food prepared OUTSIDE of the kitchen was to be allowed into the building to prevent accidental contamination. Not even grandmas finest brownies !!

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sorry, but Mister Petrey is quite wrong.

"Check your brain at the entrance." So are you saying that turning off my brain is an essential prerequisite to disagreeing with you, or only to genuinely sustaining the Lord's anointed servants?

No wonder you have such a hard time recognising arrogance among your chosen elite. It's a bit like a fish not noticing that the ocean is wet.

I know who they are; I sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators. Who has sustained you to those roles?

I understand that of course the guidance the Lord vouchsafes them is going to differ from popular societal views. Nobody needs special revelation to figure out what anyone can learn by opening a newspaper. (Or by consulting their own oh-so-fashionable trendy-leftie prejudices.)

OTOH, it doesn't really take a whole lot of brainpower to join the "herd of independent thinkers," either.

I'm sure you are a member of the Church. Do you think it is more noble to oppose the Church from the inside?
 

Haha...  I throw a little of your own snark back at you and your response is all over the place.  It’s been fun, thanks.  😆 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No, it was my attempt to point out that it's stupid to assume that a man routinely ignores a woman because she's not a man.

Privilege

[kiwi57]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Privilege

Slogan

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You have to really earn your membership to this club, as opposed to the “I-can’t-do-anything-but-praise-the-brethren-and-their-propaganda-club”, which really only requires that you check your brain at the entrance.  Ironically we’re both members of the same church, fancy that.  

Ah, this explains some of your posting.

Pro-Tip: If you keep your brain on you will say fewer stupid things. Hope this helps.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Haha...  I throw a little of your own snark back at you and your response is all over the place.  It’s been fun, thanks.  😆 

Incidentally, my remark about your club wasn't merely "snark." It was a serious criticism.

[kiwi57]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

 

I don't know if it's "sobering," but it's certainly irrelevant.

The total tax take for the Grand Duchy of Monaco probably gets into Fortune 500 territory, too. The reason nobody makes that kind of irrelevant comparison is because it is, well, irrelevant. You don't compare business concerns with countries.

Or churches.

Such comparisons just don't work, on so many levels.

The only thing they are good for is propaganda.

Maybe that explains something...

[Alan]

20 hours 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?

I certainly can, but they don't get to take the sacrament.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Alan said:

I certainly can, but they don't get to take the sacrament.

One concern of mine (and no, I don't physically prevent them from taking the sacrament) is when people come in late, having missed the prayer(s), but want to take the bread and water. In my mind, they weren't there for the prayer and didn't make the covenant, and should seek to take it next time when they can be there to assent to the prayer(s). But that's something that people are going to have to do themselves. 

I think the same applies to parents who miss the prayers because of dealing with baby explosions (we once bought cheap diapers that didn't have elastic around the legs. Big mistake!). Sometimes life happens, and I think the Lord understands that. But in those cases, you don't get to take the sacrament (in my view, but again, this is ideally an individual policing).

[MiserereNobis]

20 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

2. Make Church HQ legally sovereign like the Catholic Church HQ

That would make some headlines... "LDS Church Secedes From Union"

How big is temple square? Would it beat Vatican City as the world's smallest country?

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That would make some headlines... "LDS Church Secedes From Union"

How big is temple square? Would it beat Vatican City as the world's smallest country?

How much do you think it costs to hire a Swiss guard?

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/1/2017 at 9:42 PM, Mystery Meat said:

I try not to use ark steadying as a club (anymore), but some if there was a time, this would be it. And I say that as somebody who agrees with some of the suggestions. Having said that, many of her recommendations absolutely wreak of post modernism philosophy. She is clearly trying to shape the Church, not in Christ's image, but in the image of her personal politics. I imagine that if one is progressive, they would be more inclined to desire the same changes. I don't think Church structure should be deeply rooted in any political philosophy and if they are it is probably a pretty good indication that they are not inspired.

I'd love to see mfbukowski weigh in on this, as he is the resident philosopher who believes that the LDS church is fully post-modern and that is its strength

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

How much do you think it costs to hire a Swiss guard?

Not sure, but their outfits are way cooler than any of the security hanging out around the church office building...

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

My information may be out of date.  It appears, for example, that Florida changed its rules several years ago.

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/hr/FAQ-ChurchKitchens.html

It is possible that insurance issues (including self insurance where the Church is allowed to do that and so chooses) may be the main reason currently for the warming only policy.  I remember back in the 80s being disappointed I couldn't use actual lit candles for a Primary class.  I was told such restrictions were to cut down on potential damages.

I will have to see if Canada has changed.  There was a license that allowed certain things posted in the ward kitchen there, iirc. (I don't rule out that my memory is confused).

Insurance due to fire is a big issue although in theory that'd just involve spending a few hundred extra each month for each building. But with all the wards that adds up. I think the bigger issue is uniform rules for the country otherwise people move between states and assume you could do the same thing with the kitchens. Most states aren't like Florida. (Don't get me started on California health laws)