Focus Group - your top concerns

[nuclearfuels]

Looks like I might be invited to a focus group conducted by the researchers who work at Church HQ.

I don't really have concerns about doctrine but more about the culture, so it's difficult for me to put those into wards since I see through a glass darkly, very darkly on a good day.

If you all could civilly share with me a few of your concerns / qualms, it might help me verbalize my own.

 

[Duncan]

1)There seems to be an attitude of upward mobility equaling spirituality and your good with God, big pay raise, new house trips etc.  and you get the "big callings" In our ward we had a HC guy(who checks all the boxes for "righteousness")  who is the Temple construction manager but he give a talk about his own personal politics and I don't want to go to church to hear about politics, so calling that guy to the HC bit the Stake in the oonka toonka. Knowing our stake they'll do nothing and he'll keep saying whatever.

2)Never good enough, always needing improvement, better job, better home, better this or that and who wants to come to church feeling worse leaving than when you came? I know Sister Eubank(s) mentioned this in a talk last April but the lived experience is something else.

3)Bureacracy. The Church has the attitude and i've seen this in other organizations as well, someone goes to the bathroom so now everyone has to wear a diaper. Just because someone somewhere screwed up doesn't mean everyone everywhere needs to change. I saw this first hand at our last Stake Conf. training session. Missionary work with the ward now is a mess with the introduction of EQ and RS layers of reporting to the EQ and RS Pres. who are supposed to take what the missionaries are doing to the ward council. What was wrong with the WML doing? if some WML wasn't attending ward council, then call a new one. If there isn't two way communication between the ward council and missionaries, then fix the WML, not the system. It's now a bureacracy, the missionaries are supposed to tell the WML who is supposed to tell the EQ and RS who is supposed to tell the ward council, in turn, they are supposed to tell the EQ and RS who tell the missionaries, what a waste of time. Correct that by having the WML attend ward council and forget this EQ and RS reporting stuff.

4) I think the Church should be more international. I think that when laws are passed or situations arise in other countries, the Church says nothing and so the Stake President says nothing because nobody knows what to do (I LOVE our Stake President) For example, Canada just had a federal election and the old Prime Minister got re-elected. Did the Church, general or otherwise issue a statement about it? No. When the US gets a President, they've sung at the inauguration and issue a statement. I emailed Newsroom Canada about it and heard zippo back. Why didn't the Church say anything? How difficult is it for whoever to issue a statement.They have time for the US. When gay marriage became legal here in Canada the Church said nothing, when it became legal in the US, the world fell apart. Sometimes the Church acts like a relative of mine it isn't a problem until it happens to them and so good luck to everybody else and then they want help and prayers for the country (Pres. Ballard). Where where your prayers for my country 10 plus years ago? FYI, I like the US😀

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Looks like I might be invited to a focus group conducted by the researchers who work at Church HQ.

I don't really have concerns about doctrine but more about the culture, so it's difficult for me to put those into wards since I see through a glass darkly, very darkly on a good day.

If you all could civilly share with me a few of your concerns / qualms, it might help me verbalize my own.

 

What is the focus group focusing on? Doctrine, culture, both, other?

Sometimes participating might bring up something you can offer.

[nuclearfuels]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the focus group focusing on? Doctrine, culture, both, other?

Sometimes participating might bring up something you can offer.

Well, as a former researcher myself, it seems to be a follow up to the 2015 study which queried why people were leaving or what was bothering them (Church history, etc.).

My TBM wife completed the survey and was politely disinvited from the in-person focus group.

So, the scope of this project seems to focus not on on the outlier groups (Left the Church, not coming back  - - - TBM) but those people whose beliefs fall within the other standard deviations

[nuclearfuels]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Canada

Well, Duncan, Canada is really big. 

I dont speak for anyone in the Church or my ward and I can give you a statement. How is ti possible for me to read "re-elected Trudeau?!" Really? 

 

[Maidservant]

Tell them just to come here, lol.

///////////////////////////////

It is so deep for me what needs to change. Some deep paradigms.

First of all, the kinds of things that the church wants to accomplish, to make the earth and its people happy and safe, are not to be done by religion nor by rule.

Please teach NT and OT and temple symbolism NOT character examples and ethics. Doing the latter is an underuse of scripture.

That the idea of repentance is not that helpful. We do need to change, but I changed by changing the kind of minerals I took. I changed by detoxing my cells. People change by real methods relating to their body and mind, not by saying 'repent'.

Sitting in benches, having talks and hymns, is not necessarily the best type of human gathering that defines holiness (how about sacred dance?) and may indeed leave many people outside of the possibility of experiencing a worship moment(s).

The way that technology redoes the nature of the universe. Like prayer versus texting. If it is so amazing when God gives a vision--is it more amazing than IMAX? It's not the vision that's good or Godly just because of the so-called miraculous aspect of it, which we could see now is simply a technology; so the point can't be that, it can only be nothing about that, and only how we change as a person, vision or no vision (or fill in the blank miracle).

Did you know that it's not healthy for the human belly to be covered up completely? That's where the solar plexus is and it needs to connect with the sun.

WHICH atonement theory? How about Christ is the WAY (not a person)? that WE are the body of Christ (as it says plainly in the NT).

The church is not a building, or a religion, or a group that has incast and outcast. It was meant to be the foil to the world's kingdoms. The church doesn't need to be at all, because it's going to fall away in celestiality, so why not now? we just need to be the family of earth. The church is US, in union, and we don't need to call ourselves something other than US.

I know these are eclectic bits, but my point is we have this huge, massive narrative of cosmology (both the church and the world) and there fissures in places that are hard to see, because the main part of it is so beautiful.  And somewhat effective, meaning we need a quest, we need a community, etc. These are human needs so of course the church or any organization can meet them. 

The basic point is that they ought to start all over from the beginning. Knowing what we know now, which is nothing like we knew ever in recorded and recollected history. Re-language, reconceptualize everything. Start with agency and freedom and love, and if it can't fit in that; or if it isn't needed to have those; then toss.

 

[rpn]

I don't understand why mothers cannot hold their child while they are being blessed by father, if they wish to do so.   (Personally, I would not wish to.)

I hear from time to time of what appears on the face to be grossly unChristlike leadership decisions, that are ratified up the chain of command.   (Ex.  Disabled member being trespassed for all stake buildings, so she has to travel 60 miles to attend church, when she can afford the gas, where she is welcomed without incident.     Member is gravely injured by other ward member and afraid for their family (triggers if not risk of actual harm), but is refused permission to attend a different congregation as they try to get their live back together.)

How is it that someone gets called as a Bishop/youth leader/MP who is abusive to wife and children/employees,  who is using child p____, , who has a record of a_____ inapproppriateness with subordinates, who is underpaying undocumented labor, because they are undocumented and unable to stand up, who doesn't fully pay his bills?      Why isn't there a better background check  system?   Why aren't women involved in the calling or vetting process?    What is wrong with the process that allows those very trying results to happen ----and don't try to tell me it is God's will, because I do not believe for a second that He actually called anyone in those circumstances:  the very real damage to the institution and faith of members, not to mention the direct harm to innocents,  is far too great for it to be so He can hold them accountable.

What can we do to assure that in our efforts to respect leaders, and the callings in which they serve, does not end up as blindness and lack of due diligence and even leader worship?

 

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, rpn said:

I don't understand why mothers cannot hold their child while they are being blessed by father, if they wish to do so.

I have on a number of occasions blessed a child held in its mother's arms. Where are we instructed that this is not OK?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I really have only one. I am growing weary of having to shave off my facial hair each month so that I can work in the temple. I was working in the temple when this rule was introduced, so it's not that long-lived, and I distinctly remember the cover letter that came with the uniform 'dress and grooming standards' almost apologising that so many members had basically asked for more rules. We need to go back to the way it was on this one. If I'm neat and clean, I can serve in the temple. It makes no sense to have additional burdens to being an ordinance worker, especially since the actual time spent in the role is only 5 hours a month. There is no other calling in the Church that isn't full-time (missionary, general authority) that has 'dress and grooming standards'.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

34 minutes ago, rpn said:

I don't understand why mothers cannot hold their child while they are being blessed by father, if they wish to do so.   (Personally, I would not wish to.)

I hear from time to time of what appears on the face to be grossly unChristlike leadership decisions, that are ratified up the chain of command.   (Ex.  Disabled member being trespassed for all stake buildings, so she has to travel 60 miles to attend church, when she can afford the gas, where she is welcomed without incident.     Member is gravely injured by other ward member and afraid for their family (triggers if not risk of actual harm), but is refused permission to attend a different congregation as they try to get their live back together.)

How is it that someone gets called as a Bishop/youth leader/MP who is abusive to wife and children/employees,  who is using child p____, , who has a record of a_____ inapproppriateness with subordinates, who is underpaying undocumented labor, because they are undocumented and unable to stand up, who doesn't fully pay his bills?      Why isn't there a better background check  system?   Why aren't women involved in the calling or vetting process?    What is wrong with the process that allows those very trying results to happen ----and don't try to tell me it is God's will, because I do not believe for a second that He actually called anyone in those circumstances:  the very real damage to the institution and faith of members, not to mention the direct harm to innocents,  is far too great for it to be so He can hold them accountable.

What can we do to assure that in our efforts to respect leaders, and the callings in which they serve, does not end up as blindness and lack of due diligence and even leader worship?

 

 

 

building on that, a couple of times I was asked for a person to serve in certain callings, I thought and prayed and got an answer only to be told they were available-so why would I get revelation on someone come to find out that are being considered for some other calling? why is my revelation any less important than someone else's? I once had a Bishop that picked people as councilors for EQ and RS, and surprise surprise it didn't go well

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

a couple of times I was asked for a person to serve in certain callings, I thought and prayed and got an answer only to be told they were available-so why would I get revelation on someone come to find out that are being considered for some other calling? why is my revelation any less important than someone else's? I once had a Bishop that picked people as councilors for EQ and RS, and surprise surprise it didn't go well

Sometimes revelation is directional, not conclusive. At least that's been my experience.

And sometimes bishops and other leaders screw up. We are in the process of calling new bishoprics. Two new bishops recommended counsellors that we had doubts/questions about. The stake president went back to the new bishops with the concerns and asked them to reconsider. One of them was only returned to full fellowship a few months ago, and the other one has had previous addiction issues. Both bishops came back with the same names, so we are in the process of calling them. We trust our new bishops to be inspired.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sometimes revelation is directional, not conclusive. At least that's been my experience.

And sometimes bishops and other leaders screw up. We are in the process of calling new bishoprics. Two new bishops recommended counsellors that we had doubts/questions about. The stake president went back to the new bishops with the concerns and asked them to reconsider. One of them was only returned to full fellowship a few months ago, and the other one has had previous addiction issues. Both bishops came back with the same names, so we are in the process of calling them. We trust our new bishops to be inspired.

addiction? as in gambling or all the mighty chocolate?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

addiction? as in gambling or all the mighty chocolate?

Neither.

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Neither.

well, we had a branch presidency councillor who drank, he's dead now

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

well, we had a branch presidency councillor who drank, he's dead now

Par for the course in your stake from what I can surmise ...

In our case, the bishop has assured us he will make sure his counsellor doesn't backslide. And he said that he knows no other member of the ward who has so much compassion, which is precisely what he needs.

In the case of the brother who was disfellowshipped until just a few months ago, I strongly suspect the Lord intends to teach both him and some of his ward members about the absolute efficacy of His Atonement.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[bsjkki]

Some have left the church do to the feeling the church hurts people. They think the church discards, doesn't value those who struggle and are not perfect. LGBTQ  issues, bad repentance experiences (not loving--seeking to punish further), too controlling. Policy over people.

[sunstoned]

I think more transparency is needed in church finances.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

1)There seems to be an attitude of upward mobility equaling spirituality and your good with God, big pay raise, new house trips etc.  and you get the "big callings" In our ward we had a HC guy(who checks all the boxes for "righteousness")  who is the Temple construction manager but he give a talk about his own personal politics and I don't want to go to church to hear about politics, so calling that guy to the HC bit the Stake in the oonka toonka. Knowing our stake they'll do nothing and he'll keep saying whatever.

There is no place for partisan politics in the LDS Church.

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

2)Never good enough, always needing improvement, better job, better home, better this or that and who wants to come to church feeling worse leaving than when you came? I know Sister Eubank(s) mentioned this in a talk last April but the lived experience is something else.

The rich Zoramites versus the poor Zoramites?

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

...................... I like the US😀

During much of its history, the U.S. Gov't was merciless in its persecution of the LDS Church.  And much of American culture is antithetical to LDS concerns.  We can be good neighbors of our fellow Americans without becoming as twisted as they are.

[juliann]

1.  Equalize the cruel sealing policy that keeps polygamy alive.

2  Equalize  the cruel sealing policy  that targets women. 

3. Equalize the cruel sealing policy and then say “God will work it all out “  

and in general, we are now raising a generation of scripturally illiterate members with the new programs  

 

[Peacefully]

A place at church for same-sex married couples and their families. I don’t know exactly what this looks like but I would love it if we could be more inclusive.

 

 

 

[MustardSeed]

Coffee and donuts after church, full stop. 

If I can’t have that, I’ll be fine with more emphasis on less meetings.  It’s still a problem. 

[CA Steve]

My wish list?

1. Full participation at all levels for women and GLBTQ including allowing women to hold the priesthood.

2. Full transparency for finances and membership numbers.

3. Move the WoW back to the level of good advice or change it to actually cover things that are detrimental and allow the use of those things that are not.

4. Tithing  amount that is based on net gain.

5. Emeritus status for all GA's at age 75, including the apostles and the prophet.

6. Figure out a way to make church meetings more interesting and more culturally relevant. Maybe allow music from a wider variety of sources?

7. The focus on missions to be on service not proselytizing. Let's have your youth spend two years building schools, hospitals, churches, and infrastructure where needed.

On Edit.

Oh and bring back road shows, church wide athletic competitions (or at least regional wide) and Scouting.

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by CA Steve

[snowflake]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I really have only one. I am growing weary of having to shave off my facial hair each month so that I can work in the temple. I was working in the temple when this rule was introduced, so it's not that long-lived, and I distinctly remember the cover letter that came with the uniform 'dress and grooming standards' almost apologising that so many members had basically asked for more rules. We need to go back to the way it was on this one. If I'm neat and clean, I can serve in the temple. It makes no sense to have additional burdens to being an ordinance worker, especially since the actual time spent in the role is only 5 hours a month. There is no other calling in the Church that isn't full-time (missionary, general authority) that has 'dress and grooming standards'.

Bring back the beards! Orson Pratt

[MustardSeed]

Oh.  Let them know that “I” think book sales is priestcraft unless all proceeds are donated to the poor. 

[The Nehor]

Keep the revelation and changes coming no matter how much people complain.