Bombarded With Virtual Church Meetings

[The Nehor]

My ward is gearing up for virtual meetings for almost every organization. I (and others) pushed hard to make sure it was communicated very clearly that these are optional in support of home based gospel learning and are not "church".

A fun anecdote about the dangers of overclaiming revelation. A local stake presidency recently released guidelines on how to take the sacrament to others while maintaining social distancing. The communication was very clear that this came by revelation and is what the Lord wants for the stake. A few days later the First Presidency issued guidelines on ordinances contradicting part of the stake's guidelines. Ouch.

In horrible news my ward has its first possible presumptive positive. If so it complicated preexisting conditions. Blood clots in the lungs and seizures hit. She had surgery yesterday. Everyone is praying for her but the medical prognosis is pretty grim.  

[rongo]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In horrible news my ward has its first possible presumptive positive. If so it complicated preexisting conditions. Blood clots in the lungs and seizures hit. She had surgery yesterday. Everyone is praying for her but the medical prognosis is pretty grim.  

My wife is the RS secretary, and she just had a long conversation with the RS president. She said that our ZIP code has the most cases in Maricopa County (the gigantic county that includes Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe, etc.). On its face, this might sound shocking, but our ZIP code is a) affluent and b) heavily-LDS, so it's probably more a function of people going and getting tested. I know when I went to sign my new contract, there was a drive-through testing site that had lines of cars wrapping around. I'll bet a lot of people in inner-city Phoenix wouldn't even think of being tested. Most will be fine, unless they are unhealthy to begin with. 

The different coronaviruses latch onto receptors in the a) lungs, b) heart, and c) intestines (some forms cause diarrhea, others cause the common cold). The vast majority of deaths are not only among the elderly, but among people who are obese, smoke/vape, or have other major health problems like diabetes, heart disease, etc. The inflammation that results from the body's immune response turns deadly among people with major pre-existing health problems. 

I wouldn't be surprised if there are cases in my ward. I also have zero concern that there might be (for myself and my family), other than the risk to the vulnerable. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by rongo

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My ward is gearing up for virtual meetings for almost every organization. I (and others) pushed hard to make sure it was communicated very clearly that these are optional in support of home based gospel learning and are not "church".

A fun anecdote about the dangers of overclaiming revelation. A local stake presidency recently released guidelines on how to take the sacrament to others while maintaining social distancing. The communication was very clear that this came by revelation and is what the Lord wants for the stake. A few days later the First Presidency issued guidelines on ordinances contradicting part of the stake's guidelines. Ouch.

In horrible news my ward has its first possible presumptive positive. If so it complicated preexisting conditions. Blood clots in the lungs and seizures hit. She had surgery yesterday. Everyone is praying for her but the medical prognosis is pretty grim.  

I say ixnay on those that want to take the Sacrament to others, terrible idea and I see it over an over. My friends recently did this with their neighbors and the young man that prepared it, later found out he had Covid-19 which caused our friends to not be allowed to work but have to self quarantine for two weeks. I would urge your ward and stake to not do this, Jesus will understand. Maybe they can do a ritual among themselves like a repentance process of some kind, or something with the Lord if they're unable to administer it themselves.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I say ixnay on those that want to take the Sacrament to others, terrible idea and I see it over an over. My friends recently did this with their neighbors and the young man that prepared it, later found out he had Covid-19 which caused our friends to not be allowed to work but have to self quarantine for two weeks. I would urge your ward and stake to not do this, Jesus will understand. Maybe they can do a ritual among themselves like a repentance process of some kind, or something with the Lord if they're unable to administer it themselves.

I say leave it up to the individuals and families receiving it and, of course, to those taking it. We have made it very clear to all that there is no pressure either to receive it or to take it to someone. If someone wants it and their ministers are uncomfortable taking care of it we delegate it to someone else.

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My friends recently did this with their neighbors and the young man that prepared it, later found out he had Covid-19 which caused our friends to not be allowed to work but have to self quarantine for two weeks.

Wait. So they got to have the Sacrament and then got to take two weeks off from work? Sounds like a win-win to me.  

In our stake, we are still permitted to take the sacrament to those who desire it - though, as Nehor said, there's no pressure on anyone to either take or receive it. My father-in-law lives in our stake and has pre-existing health conditions which put him at greater risk for serious complications. He told his EQ president that he wouldn't be able to administer to the one sister on his list who requested it, and that was it. No big deal. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

The diversity of experience is really interesting to me. It's not surprising, but it is interesting.

For some, they feel they are being bombarded with meetings. Local wards and stakes are doing a LOT of out reach, virtual meetings, service projects etc. Some people enjoy that, some don't.

On the other end of the spectrum, some wards/stakes are radio silent. There is almost NO interaction with members since church meetings have been cancelled. Some people enjoy that, some don't.

The way we as members react to these differences is often just a matter of preference, but in many cases it also illustrates a difference in need. People are different and react differently to different approaches. It makes me wonder if/when the church will allow greater flexibility in allowing members to choose where they attend and how they interact. In my ward, it seems that the Bishopric is on vacation. We've heard nothing and they've done nothing (at least that is visible to the average member). Some people really like that minimalist approach and others need to have a more engaged bishopric that perhaps meets their needs in a different or more effective way. For me, I could go to a different ward with a building that is physically closer to me, with a leadership that engages members in a way i find more meaningful. But I can't.

For a long time the church has been very committed to the idea of "go where you are assigned" and make it work, instead of allowing flexibility and choice. Why is that?

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For a long time the church has been very committed to the idea of "go where you are assigned" and make it work, instead of allowing flexibility and choice. Why is that?

It's so you don't have haves and have nots; the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor, figuratively speaking. This ward does all of these cool things, our ward is lame, we're going over there. 

Doctrinally, the Church's position is that the keys are geographical. Supposedly, boundary exceptions must be granted by the First Presidency, but in practice, bishops and stake presidents usually just agree among themselves. 

I'll say that in my experience, boundary exceptions never work out for people's good, even when it appears that it will be better for them. In my experience, it would have been better in hindsight to have toed the party line on boundaries than to have granted an exception (e.g., when a convert has friends in X ward, but lives in Y ward, so it's justified on fellowshipping grounds. If they really are converted, then they will integrate into their ward and still retain friendships outside of the ward). 

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, alter idem said:

The use of virtual leadership type meetings after this Pandemic is over, is something I really hope will be kept. In 2020, with the technology we enjoy there's no reason not to save on time and expense, by utilizing more virtual meetings for church callings and for work. They would not replace all meetings  completely,  but they ought to be used to replace some, imo.

My stake, like most in the UK outside London, is spread over a large area. There's 40 miles between the southern and northern-most meetinghouses. The stake presidency members live dozens of miles apart in a country where roads are relatively narrow. We were already having the occasional stake presidency meeting using Skype because two of the presidency operate international businesses. A few months ago the stake president presided over a presidency meeting from New York City! I expect that we will continue to hold virtual meetings after this virus thing goes away. As the stake clerk, I hope we do because I find it easier to take notes for the meeting minutes when we do it virtually.

[Stargazer]

On 4/19/2020 at 8:17 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I read this just now and turned to my 14-year-old seated beside me to ask if she is feeling isolated because she can’t meet with her Young Women group. 
 

She looked puzzled for an instant and then said, “No. I have a family.”

Some families are smaller than others, and some young women have a greater need to be connected with their peers than others.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

ll say that in my experience, boundary exceptions never work out for people's good, even when it appears that it will be better for them

I have seen it work (imo) when there were some massive irreconcilables between two families and ward members were feeling like they were being pushed to choose sides.  It was not a situation that was going to change for the better given the personalities and history (affair) involved.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Calm

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have seen it work (imo) when there were some massive irreconcilables between two families and ward members were feeling like they were being pushed to choose sides.  It was not a situation that was going to change for the better given the personalities and history (affair) involved.

I'm glad I've never experienced that. In my experience, it has been preference, friends, etc. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

I'll say that in my experience, boundary exceptions never work out for people's good, even when it appears that it will be better for them.

We have four exceptions in our stake:

• Single mum with two young boys, the elder with severe autism. She moved when she divorced, and the poor boy never could settle into the neighbouring ward. After a year of trying and trauma, we obtained First Presidency approval for them to return to the first ward. It's been very good. And when we created new wards last year, we allowed them to be in the new ward that this young man's supports are in.
• Single, elderly, migrant sister who joined the Church about six years ago and has significant needs. She has been emotionally dependent on her assigned minister (who was her first bishop) and me pretty much since her baptism. When we introduced new wards last year, she was actually about 30 metres across the boundary from the two of us. The stake presidency met with her and determined to seek First Presidency approval for her to be included in the ward where her sole support network is. This has been very good.
• We have a very old couple in our stake who divorced decades ago and remain unreconciled. (He's pretty low-key, but she has said she'd rather apostatise than attend the same ward he does.) They both have very significant health issues, and the new wards put them in separate units for the first time but then shifted them both away from their long-term support networks, which we thought was a bad idea, so, with approval, we've placed them in opposite wards (i.e. he goes to the ward she lives in, and he attends the ward she lives in). This seems to be working out well.
• A member of our stake high council has a crazy ex-wife who has a court order that forbids their being in the same chapel. This required his being assigned to a different ward. (We actually let her pick which new ward she wanted to be in, which took weeks of game-playing before she would finally settle.) I don't like this, but it is what it is.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I have seen it work (imo) when there were some massive irreconcilables between two families and ward members were feeling like they were being pushed to choose sides.  It was not a situation that was going to change for the better given the personalities and history (affair) involved.

I have also seen it work but in similar situations. Divorcing spouses still in same ward, estranged parents or children, things of that nature. In some extreme cases it is a safety concern.

[maj]

On 4/19/2020 at 6:52 PM, Calm said:

Are you referring to these instructions or something else?  If the latter, could you provide a link or info with a source please. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72824-church-gives-out-instructions-for-ordinances-etc/

 

In part I was referring to the instructions you linked to.

In addition, in our stake we received direction last month from Elder Gary Sabin which stated:

"while it may be appropriate to broadcast a message from a bishopric or stake presidency into the homes on occasion, you should not feel compelled to provide a weekly sacrament meeting as these have been suspended. This is a unique opportunity for families to enhance their home-centred experience for which we have many wonderful resources such as “Come Follow Me,” Conference talks, Book of Mormon videos, etc. "

Alright with that?

[PacMan]

On 4/19/2020 at 6:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Did your area presidency really forbid you to have a hymn or a prayer when you have the sacrament in your home? That’s contrary to what I’ve heard. Singing a hymn and having a family prayer is not “replicating sacrament meeting.”

Yes. That was the instruction. 

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Yes. That was the instruction. 

It may have been the instruction from some, in some locations, but such instruction has now been unquestionably superseded:

Administering the Sacrament

Members should take advantage of the blessings of attending sacrament meeting and partaking of the sacrament weekly when possible. In exceptional circumstances, when ward sacrament meetings are not held for an extended time, a bishop may authorize worthy priesthood holders in his ward to prepare and administer the sacrament in their own homes or in the homes of other ward members who do not have a worthy priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home. (See General Handbook, 18.9.1.) When needed, the sacrament may be administered by a single priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

Members may provide their own bread and water. However, preparing the sacrament should be done by the authorized priesthood holder(s). The priesthood holder(s) administering the sacrament must be in the same location as those who receive it when they break the bread, say the prayers, and pass the emblems. In unusual circumstances when the sacrament is not available, members can be comforted by studying the sacrament prayers and recommitting to live the covenants members have made and praying for the day they will receive it in person, properly administered by the priesthood.

Individuals and families are blessed when they can hold a private, home-centered Sabbath worship service, in person or remotely. Such worship can include prayers, hymns, and gospel study. When authorized, priesthood holder(s) are present, the sacrament may be blessed and passed.

 

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

It may have been the instruction from some, in some locations, but such instruction has now been unquestionably superseded:

Administering the Sacrament

Members should take advantage of the blessings of attending sacrament meeting and partaking of the sacrament weekly when possible. In exceptional circumstances, when ward sacrament meetings are not held for an extended time, a bishop may authorize worthy priesthood holders in his ward to prepare and administer the sacrament in their own homes or in the homes of other ward members who do not have a worthy priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home. (See General Handbook, 18.9.1.) When needed, the sacrament may be administered by a single priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

Members may provide their own bread and water. However, preparing the sacrament should be done by the authorized priesthood holder(s). The priesthood holder(s) administering the sacrament must be in the same location as those who receive it when they break the bread, say the prayers, and pass the emblems. In unusual circumstances when the sacrament is not available, members can be comforted by studying the sacrament prayers and recommitting to live the covenants members have made and praying for the day they will receive it in person, properly administered by the priesthood.

Individuals and families are blessed when they can hold a private, home-centered Sabbath worship service, in person or remotely. Such worship can include prayers, hymns, and gospel study. When authorized, priesthood holder(s) are present, the sacrament may be blessed and passed.

 

This is the instruction from my Area's 70 and what we are supposed to do for our administration of Sacrament in our homes. I posted the full instructions several pages ago.  Here is the specific quote from that letter:

Quote

The pattern for administering the sacrament should follow what we always do in church meetings (kneeling to offer the prayers, using the standard wording, breaking of the bread, etc.). We are not suggesting that cups and trays be distributed to homes. They can use a simple plate and cups that they already have in their homes. The sacrament should be administered at least once a month, and no more than once a week, always on Sundays. Members should not gather in large groups. We are suggesting that YSA wards not gather in groups larger than a family home evening group (max around 20), yet prefer that it be in smaller settings and not in more than one apartment complex, always under the direction and delegation of their bishops. 

Finally, the sacrament should not be part of meeting or other activity. It should be a stand- alone ordinance, simple and sacred. We have approved that families start with a family prayer, singing of a sacramental hymn, and then the ordinance. We worry if there is a closing hymn and prayer as that start to look like a meeting and before long, we might have sacrament meetings being held in multiple locations in the ward. Remember, this is a temporary solution. Once the suspension of Sunday meetings is lifted, we want members to return chapels to partake of the sacrament.” 

And the pertinent part:     'We have approved that families start with a family prayer, singing of a sacramental hymn, and then the ordinance. We worry if there is a closing hymn and prayer as that starts to look like a meeting and before long, we might have sacrament meetings being held in multiple locations in the ward.'  Those instructions to our area, to my knowledge, have not been superseded by the general instructions, but should go along with them.  I don't know what others were told, but it's clear some of us received more specific instruction, and the reasons for those instructions.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 3:58 PM, rongo said:

It's so you don't have haves and have nots; the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor, figuratively speaking. This ward does all of these cool things, our ward is lame, we're going over there. 

Doctrinally, the Church's position is that the keys are geographical. Supposedly, boundary exceptions must be granted by the First Presidency, but in practice, bishops and stake presidents usually just agree among themselves. 

I'll say that in my experience, boundary exceptions never work out for people's good, even when it appears that it will be better for them. In my experience, it would have been better in hindsight to have toed the party line on boundaries than to have granted an exception (e.g., when a convert has friends in X ward, but lives in Y ward, so it's justified on fellowshipping grounds. If they really are converted, then they will integrate into their ward and still retain friendships outside of the ward). 

Good point RONGO. I guess where I am in the Midwest that just really isn't the same kind of issue it might be out west. We have wards that span 50 square miles so geography makes a lot of sense, and that geography really doesn't impact the financial make up of wards.

So while I can appreciate there are reasons for the policy I think it is a REALLY big stretch to say that doctrinally keys are geographical. It may be a policy, or even a teaching, but doctrine? I don't think so.

And what about the people who aren't "really converted".

"Suck it up buttercup and go where you're told" isn't necessarily going to lead them to conversion

In some ways I feel like many wards would actually do better IF there was a little competition introduced. As it is a bishop can really suck and it doesn't matter much because he has a captive audience. I don't think there is anything wrong a ward earning the participation and goodwill of its members instead of simply expecting it out of duty, assignment, and command.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

And the pertinent part:     'We have approved that families start with a family prayer, singing of a sacramental hymn, and then the ordinance. We worry if there is a closing hymn and prayer as that starts to look like a meeting and before long, we might have sacrament meetings being held in multiple locations in the ward.'  Those instructions to our area, to my knowledge, have not been superseded by the general instructions, but should go along with them.  I don't know what others were told, but it's clear some of us received more specific instruction, and the reasons for those instructions.

In my opinion, what Elder Dunn relayed to your stake president / bishop back on 3/21 is very much superseded by the instructions which have since been sent to church leaders on 4/16. The governing principle of revelation is that precedent be given to the "latest from the highest," which - in this case - would be the directions which were just distributed by the First Presidency. 

I strongly suspect that if you were to speak with Elder Dunn today, he would happily rephrase his comments to be in perfect alignment with what the Church has recently published. 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/19/2020 at 5:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Did your area presidency really forbid you to have a hymn or a prayer when you have the sacrament in your home? That’s contrary to what I’ve heard. Singing a hymn and having a family prayer is not “replicating sacrament meeting.”

This is a distinction without a difference as I see it.

At this point I'm just following the spirit.

I don't think I will be excommunicated for having a hymn and a prayer before the sacrament. 

Those practices invite the spirit, whether you are at church or at home.

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

In my opinion, what Elder Dunn relayed to your stake president / bishop back on 3/21 is very much superseded by the instructions which have since been sent to church leaders on 4/16. The governing principle of revelation is that precedent be given to the "latest from the highest," which - in this case - would be the directions which were just distributed by the First Presidency. 

I strongly suspect that if you were to speak with Elder Dunn today, he would happily rephrase his comments to be in perfect alignment with what the Church has recently published. 

 

Well, I'm not sure what you feel was not in alignment with the general information you shared.  I don't find anything wrong with what Elder Dunn said.  But, no matter, what we are doing for our Sunday home church is working fine.

[alter idem]

I just got an update from my nephew.  A month ago, I mentioned here that their YSA wards in his SA Stake were wanting to do virtual Sacrament meeting and he said that the higher ups stopped it, so they aren't doing it.  They did not want them holding virtual Sacrament, Sunday School, Relief society etc meetings.  However, they are encouraged to hold virtual leadership meetings and they are having weekly virtual ward council, which is more often than usual.  He's happy about it and thinks it is working well for them.

Also, they are doing Sacrament in an interesting way.  Because many don't have family around,  it's harder to do home Sacrament.  The YS Adults sign up for time slots, and they go to the church parking lot and wait in their cars.  Five people go up to the church (outside) and stand six feet apart. The Sacrament is blessed and given to them, they take their cups with them.  When they leave, five more get out of their cars and go up and Sacrament is again blessed and passed to them.  This way, any who want it can get it. Pretty efficient way to do it, IMO.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

The Sacrament is blessed and given to them

If done with masks and gloves, seems sensible.

[PacMan]

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

It may have been the instruction from some, in some locations, but such instruction has now been unquestionably superseded:

Administering the Sacrament

Members should take advantage of the blessings of attending sacrament meeting and partaking of the sacrament weekly when possible. In exceptional circumstances, when ward sacrament meetings are not held for an extended time, a bishop may authorize worthy priesthood holders in his ward to prepare and administer the sacrament in their own homes or in the homes of other ward members who do not have a worthy priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home. (See General Handbook, 18.9.1.) When needed, the sacrament may be administered by a single priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

Members may provide their own bread and water. However, preparing the sacrament should be done by the authorized priesthood holder(s). The priesthood holder(s) administering the sacrament must be in the same location as those who receive it when they break the bread, say the prayers, and pass the emblems. In unusual circumstances when the sacrament is not available, members can be comforted by studying the sacrament prayers and recommitting to live the covenants members have made and praying for the day they will receive it in person, properly administered by the priesthood.

Individuals and families are blessed when they can hold a private, home-centered Sabbath worship service, in person or remotely. Such worship can include prayers, hymns, and gospel study. When authorized, priesthood holder(s) are present, the sacrament may be blessed and passed.

 

While perhaps inferred, the instruction does not say that the sacrament is part of the worship service. While I would support it, I’d wait for the Area to change its position. Until then, the two can still be read in harmony with one another. 

[The Nehor]

I have to admit bishopric and ward council meetings work just as well for me when I can spend the first part of them lying down in bed with the occasional hit of the unmute button to chime in, the middle part making breakfast, and the last part eating it in my hammock on my balcony. I kind of want to make it permanent. 😈