Elder Gong unveils details of new programs for children, youth

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hoo rider said:

The devotional was well done overall and I think most people left feeling excited about the new program.  A couple thoughts:

- It was interesting to hear applause during a devotional on a Sunday.  I was under the impression that applause was usually discouraged for Sunday meetings and other spiritual meetings (e.g. Saturday sessions of General Conference), but maybe this one was an exception or our culture is changing.

- The song by David Archeluta was very well done, but I was surprised at how much "rock" (as in rock n' roll) it had in it.  If someone had played the tune (no words) in isolation I would have put it more similar to Christian rock on the radio than church music.

- The only major miss was not having the new app (can't remember the name of it) available yet.  When Elder Gong introduced the app and showed it, several young women near me immediately went to download it and were disappointed to find it unavailable.  

I share your observations about the applause at a Sunday meeting and about the fact that the app is not available for roll out yet. I tried to download it myself and was disappointed when I couldn’t find it. I suspect they are behind schedule and are still tweaking the app to get it ready. 
 

The Archuleta song did not strike me as being all that different from songs in the “popular music” genre aimed at consumers who are Church members — or from music that has been featured with EFY programs over the years. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thoughts and observations?

I think the planning booklet is something I can use for myself!

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you agree with me that a Mother in Heaven is an important doctrinal concept even though there is no specific mention of it in scripture?

 

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.

I ask, because sometimes critics who don’t agree with certain widely accepted beliefs and teachings in the Church love to highlight that they don’t have explicit support in the scriptures. 

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I share your observations about the applause at a Sunday meeting and about the fact that the app is not available for roll out yet. I tried to download it myself and was disappointed when I couldn’t find it. I suspect they are behind schedule and are still tweaking the app to get it ready. 

I think I remember hearing them say, during the presentation, that the app would be available in January.  That stood out to me because I was feeling sorry for the software developers.  It is normal for software developers to have deadlines, but I was thinking that they may have already missed the roll out deadline, since I'm sure they would have wanted the app to be ready at the same time as the presentation (unless it was an afterthought).

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

When my wife mentioned it, I suggested that maybe they are trying to emphasize the right role model:  for YM it's Heavenly Father, for YW it's Heavenly Mother or Heavenly Parents.  She feels that the boys need to be more aware of Heavenly Mother.  And I get that.

I'm trying to stay focused on the positive and I'm really happy that Heavenly Mother is coming back into our lexicon as Latter-day Saints.

I can understand her perspective; I'm hearing a lot of similar things online.  For my part, I think that concerns like this are examples of how hard the change really has been for members, going from a church-led, home supported gospel to a home-led, church supported gospel.  Our thinking hasn't really adapted to the change yet.

Because, those kinds of concerns would be valid if our children were still supposed to be getting the bulk of their gospel learning from church.  In the old format we would expect (and most of the time require) the church to be taking the helm on teaching our YM about their Heavenly Parents. But when we consider that our children are now supposed to be getting the bulk of their gospel learning from our home, there is nothing stopping our YM from being as aware of Heavenly Mother as they should be because the responsibility to make them aware lies with us, not the church.

And if we are teaching them about their Heavenly Mother at home, then I don't know that them repeating the YM theme twice a month at church could have a negative effect on their understanding of their Heavenly Parents.

 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I ask, because sometimes critics who don’t agree with certain widely accepted beliefs and teachings in the Church love to highlight that they don’t have explicit support in the scriptures. 

You should know me well enough to know that I'm a believer in continuing revelation.

ETA:  After writing that I paused to think... is Heavenly Mother a teaching rooted in new revelation or is it more a matter of "truth is reason, truth eternal" ...something I believe in because it makes absolute sense in context of everything else.  And warms my heart.

Edited November 18, 2019 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You should know me well enough to know that I'm a believer in continuing revelation.

Is there a written declaration establishing Mother in Heaven as a revelation? The earliest documentation I know of is not from a Church president but from a poetess, Eliza R. Snow. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there a written declaration establishing Mother in Heaven as a revelation? The earliest documentation I know of is not from a Church president but from a poetess, Eliza R. Snow. 

I don't think there is.  See my "ETA..." of the post you responded to.  I was apparently typing it at the same time as you were writing your response.

[Durangout]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Are you understanding God here to mean only Heavenly Father?  The title god could be applied to any member of the godhead as well as a heavenly mother.  The two themes use different words, but really have the same meaning.

If they mean the same thing, then why aren't they worded the same way?

 There is no logical reason for them to worded as they are.  This is just more pandering to women and feminists of the church

Edited November 18, 2019 by Durangout

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And if we are teaching them about their Heavenly Mother at home, then I don't know that them repeating the YM theme twice a month at church could have a negative effect on their understanding of their Heavenly Parents.

I didn't ever think it would have a negative effect on their understanding of their Heavenly Parents.  Just a missed opportunity for additional positive effects.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

You should know me well enough to know that I'm a believer in continuing revelation.

ETA:  After writing that I paused to think... is Heavenly Mother a teaching rooted in new revelation or is it more a matter of "truth is reason, truth eternal" ...something I believe in because it makes absolute sense in context of everything else.  And warms my heart.

There are some Church teachings that strike me as eternal truth and reason even though they have been disputed by critics (namely, the precepts reaffirmed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”). 
 

The point I’m getting at is that a teaching or belief need not have explicit scriptural support or historical provenance to be doctrinal, that consistent support and teaching of it over the years by prophets, seers and revelators can qualify it as doctrinal. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't ever think it would have a negative effect on their understanding of their Heavenly Parents.  Just a missed opportunity for additional positive effects.

I don’t see any missed opportunity here. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't ever think it would have a negative effect on their understanding of their Heavenly Parents.  Just a missed opportunity for additional positive effects.

I realize that, but a lot of really angry people online seem to, which seems to me to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I realize that, but a lot of really angry people online seem to, which seems to me to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

Missing the forest for the trees is an apt phrase for a great deal of the fault finding that goes on. 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thoughts and observations?

• I wasn't gaga about the format, but it was fine for what it was I suppose; seeing Elder Gong fist-bump the youth 'hosts' did make me smile a bit.
• Technical glitches were a bit of a distraction; seems like there were more of theses than there should have been (esp. the one where Pres. Nelson's playback started too early).
• Waaaaaay too much fluff. Pretty much the entire first half hour (or more) should have been left on the cutting room floor. 
• Is it just me, or did those sisters seem a little bit...handsey? 
• I really like the focus on helping the youth take charge of things themselves and set their own goals.
• I'm good with the changes to the YW theme. As for the creation of a YM theme, I'm not as big a fan. Why not just have them memorize D&C 13, or something similar? It just seems a little forced to me - like if the girls are going to have one then the boys need to have one too. 
• I liked how they talked about how youth 'can do hard things,' but then they turned right around and revealed the recognition awards: one set of "belonging" rewards that everyone gets just for showing up, and then the "achievement" award which, based on what they described, is going to be pretty much a participation award as well. So, while youth can do hard things, we aren't really interested in trying to find a way to motivate them to do hard things. My wife and I talked about that though, and maybe getting rid of special youth awards will be a good thing. I've seen people talk about their youth achievements as a way of signaling how faithful/righteous/spiritual they have always been, which (when that happened) seemed like a kind of petty way of rubbing it in other people's faces - even though, in reality, God is just as pleased with the wayward teen who never received her YW medallion but who later repented and came back into full activity. 
• I may be an outlier here, but I didn't really care for the theme song that David Archeluta performed. It sounds like an EFY song though, so I know that's what they were going for. Just not my cup of tea.

While I know that sounds a little critical, all-in-all I think the new program will be a good thing, and I'm completely supportive of it. We'll see how it goes.

 

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I realize that, but a lot of really angry people online seem to, which seems to me to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

Social media encourages this kind of thing, unfortunately, because increasing the drama results in more attention, more likes and dislikes, and viral spin offs.  But that's bowing to the pressures of the world, becoming a friend to the world (and a friend of the world is the enemy of God).  They should have highlighted that part in this week's Come Follow Me lesson  .

Edited November 18, 2019 by InCognitus

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

• I wasn't gaga about the format, but it was fine for what it was I suppose; seeing Elder Gong fist-bump the youth 'hosts' did make me smile a bit.
• Technical glitches were a bit of a distraction; seems like there were more of theses than there should have been (esp. the one where Pres. Nelson's playback started too early).
• Waaaaaay too much fluff. Pretty much the entire first half hour (or more) should have been left on the cutting room floor. 
• Is it just me, or did those sisters seem a little bit...handsey? 
• I really like the focus on helping the youth take charge of things themselves and set their own goals.
• I'm good with the changes to the YW theme. As for the creation of a YM theme, I'm not as big a fan. Why not just have them memorize D&C 13, or something similar? It just seems a little forced to me - like if the girls are going to have one then the boys need to have one too. 
• I liked how they talked about how youth 'can do hard things,' but then they turned right around and revealed the recognition awards: one set of "belonging" rewards that everyone gets just for showing up, and then the "achievement" award which, based on what they described, is going to be pretty much a participation award as well. So, while youth can do hard things, we aren't really interested in trying to find a way to motivate them to do hard things. My wife and I talked about that though, and maybe getting rid of special youth awards will be a good thing. I've seen people talk about their youth achievements as a way of signaling how faithful/righteous/spiritual they have always been, which (when that happened) seemed like a kind of petty way of rubbing it in other people's faces - even though, in reality, God is just as pleased with the wayward teen who never received her YW medallion but who later repented and came back into full activity. 
• I may be an outlier here, but I didn't really care for the theme song that David Archeluta performed. It sounds like an EFY song though, so I know that's what they were going for. Just not my cup of tea.

While I know that sounds a little critical, all-in-all I think the new program will be a good thing, and I'm completely supportive of it. We'll see how it goes.

 

My daughter (16) liked the whole thing. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are some Church teachings that strike me as eternal truth and reason even though they have been disputed by critics (namely, the precepts reaffirmed in “The Family, A Proclamation to the World). 

We know that what strikes individuals as eternal truth and reason is often different from one person to the next.  It adds a richness to our church.

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The point I’m getting at is that a teaching or belief need not have explicit scriptural support or historical provenance to be doctrinal, that consistent support and teaching of it over the years by prophets, seers and revelators can qualify it as doctrinal. 

Well this one is interesting.  While I consider it doctrine.  I also grew up being taught in church that we were to never speak of Heavenly Mother.  She wasn't taught about.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see any missed opportunity here. 

I wouldn't expect you to.  You generally find everything done by church leaders to be perfect.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I realize that, but a lot of really angry people online seem to, which seems to me to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

I don't know, I haven't seen or read comments from anyone who seems really angry about this.  To me it seems like some were so happy to see the nod to our Heavenly Mother in the YW theme that they were shocked to see Her left out of the YM theme.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We know that what strikes individuals as eternal truth and reason is often different from one person to the next.  It adds a richness to our church.

 

Well this one is interesting.  While I consider it doctrine.  I also grew up being taught in church that we were to never speak of Heavenly Mother.  She wasn't taught about.

But the concept was never denied nor disputed, right? It was more a matter of reverence and respectful restraint. Right? 
 

And you didn’t address my broader point about a teaching not needing explicit support in the scriptures or an explicit historical provenance to be doctrine. Evidently, you don’t believe that it does as applied to one of your favorite precepts, the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn't expect you to.  You generally find everything done by church leaders to be perfect.

Uncalled-for sniping. 
 

And not true. For example, in this very thread, I’ve said I thought the new YM and YW themes to be too long, wordy and unwieldy. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

59 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My daughter (16) liked the whole thing. 

My daughter (13) liked it well enough, but she was kind of burned out after an hour - which was unfortunate, because that's when the bulk of the content was delivered.

 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the concept was never denied nor disputed, right? It was more a matter of reverence and respectful restraint. Right? 
 

And you didn’t address my broader point about a teaching not needing explicit support in the scriptures or an explicit historical provenance to be doctrine. Evidently, you don’t believe that it does as applied to one of your favorite precepts, the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven. 

I disagree that Mother in Heaven has been a consistently taught doctrine. 

I am, however, a believer in Mother in Heaven and was happy to see the acknowledgment added to the YW theme. 

You seem to want to push this into another topic.  I’d suggest starting a new thread for that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I disagree that Mother in Heaven has been a consistently taught doctrine. 

I am, however, a believer in Mother in Heaven and was happy to see the acknowledgment added to the YW theme. 

You seem to want to push this into another topic.  I’d suggest starting a new thread for that. 

I don’t recall a time when the doctrine was ever denied. Do you? “O My Father” has been in the hymnal since long before I was born. 
 

But not a lot has been revealed about Her. So beyond the basic fact of Her existence (as affirmed in the hymn and in the family proclamation)  what has there been to teach about Her, really? Would you have wanted speculation and conjecture? We’ve seen the problems that can cause. 
 

Apparently, you are uncomfortable with what I have pointed out about the inconsistency of demanding scriptural support/historical provenance for some things but not for others. No matter. I’ve made my point and said my piece. You are free to pursue the subject on a new thread if you like.