Church restricts access to social networks and video streaming on meetinghouse WIFI

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does it feature Father Guido Sarducci?

Now that would be a fantastic addition! I'll send word up the chain of command.

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church provides wifi because so many church resources are used by members online at the church.  Lesson manuals, scriptures, videos for lessons, the Family Search website, scheduling the building, looking at class and organization rosters, paying tithing and other donations, etc.  All of that can be done from church apps that use an internet connection.

It's very challenging trying to access the church wifi to access lesson material when the wifi is overloaded with FB users so I totally get why they would do this. It makes perfect sense to me.

When I look around the congregation during Sacrament meeting I see an awful lot of people on their phones. I'm sure a few are for legitimate reasons but most aren't. In fact, if they are paying attention to the speakers there is little reason why someone should legitimately be on the phone during that time. Yet they are. Lots of them. Why is that?

When I visit other churches and look around the congregation I almost never see anyone on their phones. They are singing, listening, engaged. They don't appear to be seeking any possible way to make it through the hour without dying of boredom.

So yes, people slowing down wifi access for the legitimate uses is a problem. But the bigger problem revolves around why this problem exists in the first place.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So those members who come to church wanting to play Clash of Clans may not feel welcome?  Yes, those people who are playing Clash of Clans (to pick on that group) are doing so for there own purpose, but they are not using the wifi network for the purpose that the owner of the network made it available to them.  You would agree the owner of the network has the right to determine it's use, right?  I really don't think anyone will be offended, stay away, or feel not welcome because the church defines and puts parameters on the use of it's wifi network.

Okee dokes.  I don't know what clash of clans is or who plays it.  I'm not feeling all that certain such an one is going to feel so offended either.  And I also agree the Church has the right to do this.  I'm just saying, I'd wager there are a few people out there who will not like this and for more reasons then not being able to play a game or whatever.  

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's very challenging trying to access the church wifi to access lesson material when the wifi is overloaded with FB users so I totally get why they would do this. It makes perfect sense to me.

When I look around the congregation during Sacrament meeting I see an awful lot of people on their phones. I'm sure a few are for legitimate reasons but most aren't. In fact, if they are paying attention to the speakers there is little reason why someone should legitimately be on the phone during that time. Yet they are. Lots of them. Why is that?

When I visit other churches and look around the congregation I almost never see anyone on their phones. They are singing, listening, engaged. They don't appear to be seeking any possible way to make it through the hour without dying of boredom.

So yes, people slowing down wifi access for the legitimate uses is a problem. But the bigger problem revolves around why this problem exists in the first place.

 

That's probably true.  Sacrament meeting can be really really trying if the speakers are not very good and even more so if you are dealing with kids being distracting on top if it (which the majority of LDS families are).  Sunday school can be really hard because a lot of us have not only had the same lessons for dozens of times but heard the same questions and heard the same answers for all those years.  I think the church is working on this but it's not there yet.  A new curriculum would probably go a long way.  It does almost seen to be a given that the only one learning anything new on a consistent basis in SS is the teacher.

I don't know what the answer is though.  Professional speakers?  Professional teachers?  The church could do it but at what cost (not actual cost but symbolic).  What do you think some of the answers to these problems might be?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

Oh brother!  It's a no brainer that if you're attending church, a conference, a class, etc., you shouldn't be playing around on your phone. If someone is offended that they don't get to be disrespectful, oh well! 

I don't know that I know much about those websites and apps at all.  But apparently they are being blocked because they have been used.  It's probably easy to assume each time someone accesses it they are just playing around on their phone or being disrespectful.  I don't know.  As I said, I see many reasons why people go to Church and some teeter on the brink of inactivity.  Some might go to appease a spouse even.  But something like this just says, "hey all you thousands of people who have been accessing these sites and apps while at Church, sitting in the foyer, or hanging out waiting to visit with each other, no longer.  Church is church, you looking up stuff or trying to figure something out doesn't fit.  We don't want it.  Try heading home first"

Fine by me.  I'm just saying if they want less people at Church, then this is a good thing to implement.   

[gopher]

WHY ISN'T THIS SITE BLOCKED??  It's far more dangerous than social media.

(Sent while connected to the church wifi in a church parking lot)

[SouthernMo]

I think I understand the intent of the internet restrictions at ward houses, but the 'blocking' has the potential of being perceived as controlling.  Is there precedent for this at other non-lds religious buildings?

Additionally, BIG point made by HappyJackWagon.  The bigger problem is that when we aren't engaged (church, temple attendance, calling fulfillment, etc.), the problem is not solved by compulsion or restriction; that addresses only the symptom.

bluebell brings up a very good question: What are we going to do about it?

Personally, I believe that top leadership is trying to let us solve it by giving local members far greater latitude (liberalized lesson materials, expanded councils, etc.) in making changes where needed.  Why not make suggestions to our ward councils like better speakers (instead of the seemingly compulsory 'rule' that every active member be asked to speak)?  Would having a handful of called speakers have too many negative effects on the practice of our worship?

Forgive me for going long, but one great characteristic about the US is that states and local governments can try things that might get adopted elsewhere, or nationally.  I think our church would benefit from steering away from the culture of top-down leadership in all things.  We might wait less, and act more.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's probably true.  Sacrament meeting can be really really trying if the speakers are not very good and even more so if you are dealing with kids being distracting on top if it (which the majority of LDS families are).  Sunday school can be really hard because a lot of us have not only had the same lessons for dozens of times but heard the same questions and heard the same answers for all those years.  I think the church is working on this but it's not there yet.  A new curriculum would probably go a long way.  It does almost seen to be a given that the only one learning anything new on a consistent basis in SS is the teacher.

I don't know what the answer is though.  Professional speakers?  Professional teachers?  The church could do it but at what cost (not actual cost but symbolic).  What do you think some of the answers to these problems might be?

Short answer- I don't know.

Longer answer- It seems to me there could be a shift of philosophy around the purpose of church services. In other churches I've visited people attend because they want to be inspired. They want to learn. They want to be uplifted by the spirit of God and expect to find that in the services through the speakers and the music. Therefore the pastors I've spoken with approach their services with these goals in mind. Makes sense, right. In our church, however, there is another competing goal of giving everyone opportunity to participate by speaking to the congregation. I think there may be some good purpose in that, but by pursuing nearly universal participation in giving "talks" we end up hearing remarks that are often uninspiring or even boring. We can't really expect more than that when people are assigned to speak on a particular subject. They may only speak to a group once every few years so they aren't likely to be very good at it. They may not even have interest in the topic being presented. They may cop out and read a general conference talk. It can be mind numbing.

But what if speaking participation wasn't the goal? Does everyone need to be adept at speaking in front of a large congregation? Probably not. What if instead of having the entire ward list as the pool from which speakers were chosen, there was a much smaller pool of people who 1- were interested in speaking 2- demonstrated some ability to speak well 3- were allowed to choose a topic that interested them. Even if there were only 15-20 people in a ward who liked to speak and were reasonably good at it, you would get a few months of speaking without repeat speakers. But then again, if they are good, repeating once a month or two wouldn't really be a bad thing. It could still be volunteer/unpaid but with higher quality.

It would require a little bit of a change from an "assignment" mentality to a "volunteer" mentality but I think that could benefit the church all the way around, getting people to serve in areas where they personally feel a calling and a desire to serve. I think having speakers and teachers who want to speak and teach, and show some kind of aptitude for it, would go a long ways towards making sacrament meetings and classes more engaging.

ETA- I notice SouthernMO beat me to some of my suggestions while I was dithering mid-reply. Rep point SouthernMO!

I'll add that if the church had the mentality of earning the "activity" of members by providing spiritually uplifting meetings instead of expecting participation of members out of a sense of duty, efforts would be made to improve the quality of meetings. Encourage people to attend because they want that uplifting message instead of attending because they're supposed to.

Edited May 2, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Personally, I believe that top leadership is trying to let us solve it by giving local members far greater latitude (liberalized lesson materials, expanded councils, etc.) in making changes where needed.  Why not make suggestions to our ward councils like better speakers (instead of the seemingly compulsory 'rule' that every active member be asked to speak)?  Would having a handful of called speakers have too many negative effects on the practice of our worship?

Forgive me for going long, but one great characteristic about the US is that states and local governments can try things that might get adopted elsewhere, or nationally.  I think our church would benefit from steering away from the culture of top-down leadership in all things.  We might wait less, and act more.

Good point.  I worry that a lot of ward leaders are afraid to do anything different because 'tradition'.  Our ward always has three speakers.  One youth, and two adults. That means that the adults typically each have 20 minutes to use up. With a good speaker, that's not a problem, but with a bad speaker, having to deal with 20 minutes of it can be HARD.  Why not call 4 or 5 speakers each Sunday and give them 10 minute limits?  It's a lot easier for an amateur to give a good 10 minute talk than 20 minute talk.  I've been in wards where that was the norm and it was so much better.  I think some bishoprics don't ever consider that things can be done in different ways (plus, getting 2 speakers each sunday is probably a lot easier than getting 4). 

I've also been in a ward where people were often called up out of the congregation to bear their testimony in sacrament meeting on non-fast and testimony sundays.  It was amazing.  Not so much when it happened to you (  ) but still the spirit was always so strong.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Short answer- I don't know.

Longer answer- It seems to me there could be a shift of philosophy around the purpose of church services. In other churches I've visited people attend because they want to be inspired. They want to learn. They want to be uplifted by the spirit of God and expect to find that in the services through the speakers and the music. Therefore the pastors I've spoken with approach their services with these goals in mind. Makes sense, right. In our church, however, there is another competing goal of giving everyone opportunity to participate by speaking to the congregation. I think there may be some good purpose in that, but by pursuing nearly universal participation in giving "talks" we end up hearing remarks that are often uninspiring or even boring. We can't really expect more than that when people are assigned to speak on a particular subject. They may only speak to a group once every few years so they aren't likely to be very good at it. They may not even have interest in the topic being presented. They may cop out and read a general conference talk. It can be mind numbing.

But what if speaking participation wasn't the goal? Does everyone need to be adept at speaking in front of a large congregation? Probably not. What if instead of having the entire ward list as the pool from which speakers were chosen, there was a much smaller pool of people who 1- were interested in speaking 2- demonstrated some ability to speak well 3- were allowed to choose a topic that interested them. Even if there were only 15-20 people in a ward who liked to speak and were reasonably good at it, you would get a few months of speaking without repeat speakers. But then again, if they are good, repeating once a month or two wouldn't really be a bad thing. It could still be volunteer/unpaid but with higher quality.

It would require a little bit of a change from an "assignment" mentality to a "volunteer" mentality but I think that could benefit the church all the way around, getting people to serve in areas where they personally feel a calling and a desire to serve. I think having speakers and teachers who want to speak and teach, and show some kind of aptitude for it, would go a long ways towards making sacrament meetings and classes more engaging.

Interesting idea.

I think the difficulty would be in finding more than 3-4 people who would volunteer to speak in sacrament meeting, and some of the people who think they are good speakers are not really good.  We have a couple of men like that in my ward.  😬

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why not call 4 or 5 speakers each Sunday and give them 10 minute limits?

When we've tried this it seems like one speaker always takes more time than they were asked to, leaving the final speaker with only a few minutes.  Either that or the meeting goes too long.

If you have 4 speakers, and the first 3 go just two minutes over, that leaves the last speaker with only 4 minutes.  While things don't usually run on that tight of a schedule, I don't like asking someone to speak and then have to ask them, on the stand, to cut the talk they've been working on all week in half.

Edited May 2, 2018 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

When we've tried this it seems like one speaker always takes more time than they were asked to, leaving the final speaker with only a few minutes.  Either that or the meeting goes too long.

Yes, I think speakers have to really understand that they have ten minutes and that's about it.  I've seen it work very well in a couple of wards but the wards were used to it.  There is no perfect system though, i agree.  How great would it be if all pulpits had a red light that a bishopric member could flick on when the person went over time?!

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Good point.  I worry that a lot of ward leaders are afraid to do anything different because 'tradition'.  Our ward always has three speakers.  One youth, and two adults. That means that the adults typically each have 20 minutes to use up. With a good speaker, that's not a problem, but with a bad speaker, having to deal with 20 minutes of it can be HARD.  Why not call 4 or 5 speakers each Sunday and give them 10 minute limits?  It's a lot easier for an amateur to give a good 10 minute talk than 20 minute talk.  I've been in wards where that was the norm and it was so much better.  I think some bishoprics don't ever consider that things can be done in different ways (plus, getting 2 speakers each sunday is probably a lot easier than getting 4). 

I've also been in a ward where people were often called up out of the congregation to bear their testimony in sacrament meeting on non-fast and testimony sundays.  It was amazing.  Not so much when it happened to you (  ) but still the spirit was always so strong.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I've witnessed it many times as well. Sometimes it goes ok but it tends to create tension and apprehension. Personally, I'll bear testimony when and if I choose, not because I'm called out of the audience because nothing else was planned. If I believed there was a threat of being called up at any time, I may not attend. I enjoy speaking and I'm fairly good at it, but I like to prepare. I don't appreciate being put on the spot and I suspect there are many others who don't appreciate it either.

 

Quote

Interesting idea.

I think the difficulty would be in finding more than 3-4 people who would volunteer to speak in sacrament meeting, and some of the people who think they are good speakers are not really good.  We have a couple of men like that in my ward.  😬

Maybe, but I don't think so. Every ward I've ever been in has had a number of good speakers who enjoy it. You're right that not everyone who wants to speak is good at it so there would still need to be some quality control but speaking aptitude could be determined by watching them teach classes or they could be given an opportunity to speak briefly (5 minutes) to see how they do as a kind of try out. If they do well, let them speak again, and longer. If they don't do well they can be limited to time/frequency and perhaps even coached on how they could do better. We have classes about how to teach, but not really about how to speak. If there was a core group of speakers then they could be given regular training and feedback. No one is going to hit a home run with every talk, but if they strike out consistently, it might be useful to find another hitter  

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

When we've tried this it seems like one speaker always takes more time than they were asked to, leaving the final speaker with only a few minutes.  Either that or the meeting goes too long.

If you have 4 speakers, and the first 3 go just two minutes over, that leaves the last speaker with only 4 minutes.  While things don't usually run on that tight of a schedule, I don't like asking someone to speak and then have to ask them, on the stand, to cut the talk they've been working on all week in half.

There's really no accountability for speakers. If they go way too long, way too short, or don't prepare, you just shrug and know they won't likely be speaking for another year or two anyway, so there's nothing to do about it. Again, if there was a core group that gave "sermons" then there could be greater accountability if they don't follow time guidelines, don't prepare, or present the material in a way that puts everyone to sleep.

But I totally agree, it's unfair to assign someone to prepare and speak on a topic only to require them to cut their talk in half...or worse.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think speakers have to really understand that they have ten minutes and that's about it.  I've seen it work very well in a couple of wards but the wards were used to it.  There is no perfect system though, i agree.  How great would it be if all pulpits had a red light that a bishopric member could flick on when the person went over time?!

I think that most people just don't have a sense of how time passes when they are speaking.

My experience is that the more people you involve in a sacrament meeting program the greater the likelihood of something going wrong.

[SouthernMo]

Solution: Have sacrament meetings follow the "American Idol" format.  Speakers are given feedback immediately by judges, then voted on by the audience.  By the time Christmas rolls around, you'll have only the best speakers who have avoided elimination.

Perhaps we'd feel less of the spirit, but certainly be more engaged...

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think speakers have to really understand that they have ten minutes and that's about it.  I've seen it work very well in a couple of wards but the wards were used to it.  There is no perfect system though, i agree.  How great would it be if all pulpits had a red light that a bishopric member could flick on when the person went over time?!

I was going to say trap door, but I like southern mo's idea better.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I've witnessed it many times as well. Sometimes it goes ok but it tends to create tension and apprehension. Personally, I'll bear testimony when and if I choose, not because I'm called out of the audience because nothing else was planned. If I believed there was a threat of being called up at any time, I may not attend. I enjoy speaking and I'm fairly good at it, but I like to prepare. I don't appreciate being put on the spot and I suspect there are many others who don't appreciate it either.

 

Maybe, but I don't think so. Every ward I've ever been in has had a number of good speakers who enjoy it. You're right that not everyone who wants to speak is good at it so there would still need to be some quality control but speaking aptitude could be determined by watching them teach classes or they could be given an opportunity to speak briefly (5 minutes) to see how they do as a kind of try out. If they do well, let them speak again, and longer. If they don't do well they can be limited to time/frequency and perhaps even coached on how they could do better. We have classes about how to teach, but not really about how to speak. If there was a core group of speakers then they could be given regular training and feedback. No one is going to hit a home run with every talk, but if they strike out consistently, it might be useful to find another hitter  

 Have a class just for speakers. They try out their talks a month before in class and get suggestions on how to improve content and performance. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Have a class just for speakers. They try out their talks a month before in class and get suggestions on how to improve content and performance. 

Exactly. But it would only be useful if there is a smaller group of regular speakers. Having someone attend a class like that regularly in anticipation of their 1 shot at speaking in 3 years wouldn't make much sense.

It wouldn't even take a change of doctrine or policy to make this kind of change happen. Bishoprics could seek out volunteers, vet their ability, and then call them to a position of "sacrament meeting speaker" where they know they would speak once every couple of months so they could still maintain other callings as well. It could be like my once a month priesthood teaching assignment  

[Anijen]

So I cant marathon "The Walking Dead" for a lesson on the resurrection?

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I've witnessed it many times as well. Sometimes it goes ok but it tends to create tension and apprehension. Personally, I'll bear testimony when and if I choose, not because I'm called out of the audience because nothing else was planned. If I believed there was a threat of being called up at any time, I may not attend. I enjoy speaking and I'm fairly good at it, but I like to prepare. I don't appreciate being put on the spot and I suspect there are many others who don't appreciate it either.

 

Maybe, but I don't think so. Every ward I've ever been in has had a number of good speakers who enjoy it. You're right that not everyone who wants to speak is good at it so there would still need to be some quality control but speaking aptitude could be determined by watching them teach classes or they could be given an opportunity to speak briefly (5 minutes) to see how they do as a kind of try out. If they do well, let them speak again, and longer. If they don't do well they can be limited to time/frequency and perhaps even coached on how they could do better. We have classes about how to teach, but not really about how to speak. If there was a core group of speakers then they could be given regular training and feedback. No one is going to hit a home run with every talk, but if they strike out consistently, it might be useful to find another hitter  

I hear you and understand (and it was never because nothing else was planned, that was the plan) but it was one of the most awesome, humble, spirit filled ward and church meetings that I’ve ever been a member of (and I’ve been a member of 15 different wards so far).  The bishop was an amazing man and he had the spirit with him and people seemed to be able to tell. 

But he had had a very difficult life and worked as a motivational speaker/business facilitator. I think he was really good at understanding people and just loving them and people could feel that.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Exactly. But it would only be useful if there is a smaller group of regular speakers. Having someone attend a class like that regularly in anticipation of their 1 shot at speaking in 3 years wouldn't make much sense.

It wouldn't even take a change of doctrine or policy to make this kind of change happen. Bishoprics could seek out volunteers, vet their ability, and then call them to a position of "sacrament meeting speaker" where they know they would speak once every couple of months so they could still maintain other callings as well. It could be like my once a month priesthood teaching assignment  

I can’t think of more than two people right now in my ward that I would want to listen to on a regular basis.   Our ward almost always sticks to handful of speaker options already though.  

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I tend towards seeing diversity in groups of people.  Some go for this and some go for that.  Those that are using those sites are doing so for their own purposes.  I ain't here to judge.  I'm just saying, restricting people's access tends to send the message to those who feel it necessary that they aren't welcome.  

As long as children can still play games on their tablets, so what?

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

You'd love the LDS Los Angeles Stake Center.  It's always looked quite medieval to me...

 

is that the Wilshire building?

[MorningStar]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that I know much about those websites and apps at all.  But apparently they are being blocked because they have been used.  It's probably easy to assume each time someone accesses it they are just playing around on their phone or being disrespectful.  I don't know.  As I said, I see many reasons why people go to Church and some teeter on the brink of inactivity.  Some might go to appease a spouse even.  But something like this just says, "hey all you thousands of people who have been accessing these sites and apps while at Church, sitting in the foyer, or hanging out waiting to visit with each other, no longer.  Church is church, you looking up stuff or trying to figure something out doesn't fit.  We don't want it.  Try heading home first"

Fine by me.  I'm just saying if they want less people at Church, then this is a good thing to implement.   

Or the message might be, "Use your own data if your phone is more important than the person speaking." 

Edited May 3, 2018 by MorningStar