We're Headed Back to Church! Sorta.

[Calm]

Our bishop sent out both an info sheet and a survey for our opinions. 
 

Church will reopen for just SM on the 9th. They will divide the ward into three and go alternate weeks (much smarter than trying to fit everyone in since we have 3 wards meeting there already). 
 

They wanted ideas on how to divide the ward up, I suggested by commitment level to safe practices (wearing masks, no handshakes, etc) as well as singing and instrumental. (explained why). 
 

I also suggested they ask the hallways to stay empty and to visit outside and to keep all the doors open as long as weather permits to increase air circulation at the very least while cleaning. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

We had our high council meeting this morning. Our area presidency have stated that our chapels can now be used for council meetings if we wish, though attendance is limited to 10 people, and the room must be at least 40m2. (Frankly, I think online meetings make more sense.) No other use is authorised and hasn't been since our chapels were closed.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/22/2020 at 11:55 AM, Tacenda said:

Well, Pres. Trump just gave a short press conference and said that churches need to open up this weekend and didn't want governors to intervene or he'd overrule them. Scary, if the churches aren't careful. Does the president have rights to overrule governors, maybe a dumb question.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 2:50 PM, rockpond said:

I don't know if POTUS can overrule governors.

I've been an advocate of a faster reopening but even I feel that a blanket full-scale reconvening of churches is ill advised.  It would seem irresponsible, to me, for us to have our ward meet without restrictions this Sunday (250+ attendance would mean no social distancing).

Fortunately, our church leaders have already given us good counsel and direction on this.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 3:25 AM, The Nehor said:

No, he does not. The President has been reminded of this repeatedly and sometimes he acknowledges that the governors make these calls but then his ego kicks in and he goes back to ignoring the actual law and delusionally thinking he can issue any order he likes. Everyone should return the favor and ignore him and let him get back to poisoning himself.

Freedom of religion and freedom of peaceable assembly are both constitutional rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. It is not unprecedented for the executive branch of the federal government to intervene when states abridge human rights. It happened during the civil rights crises of the 1960s. 
 

But I’m hoping such will not be necessary at present. If people can be allowed to go to bars, they ought to be allowed to go to houses of worship under careful and stringent public health guidelines such as those set out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Freedom of religion and freedom of peaceable assembly are both constitutional rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. It is not unprecedented for the executive branch of the federal government to intervene when states abridge human rights. It happened during the civil rights crises of the 1960s. 

But I’m hoping such will not be necessary at present. If people can be allowed to go to bars, they ought to be allowed to go to houses of worship under careful and stringent public health guidelines such as those set out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Some states allow exceptions to the limit of the numbers allowed for mass gatherings (a good example of "careful and stringent public health guidelines") for the sake of the first amendment. They allow the basic wisdom: wear a mask, stay 6 feet apart, wash hands. The Church of course is more cautious (or should I say more detailed in the applications) with her guidance in how meetings and ordinance work are carried out (e.g. use of trays, hymnbooks, building cleaning, etc.).

Edited May 24, 2020 by CV75

[BlueDreams]

Freedom of religions and assembly can be maintained by things like zoom conferences and online services. The right to excercise religion can still be maintained without meeting in person. My 11 am RS meeting is a great example of just such a thing. The first ammendment can still be done when shutdowns or physical distancing is needed. Only a specific interpretation leads to a conflict in these 2 things. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited May 24, 2020 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Freedom of religions and assembly can be maintained by things like zoom conferences and online services. The right to excercise religion can still be maintained without meeting in person. My 11 am RS meeting is a greag example of just such a thing. The first ammendmeng can still be done when shutdowns or physical distancing is needed. Only a specific interpretation leads to a conflict in these 2 things. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Though the first to stand up for protecting the free exercise of religion, I think the Church has avoided conflicting interpretations by focusing her practices on our safety and well-being, per President Nelson’s remarks: “We are grateful for the helpful direction that government, health, and civic leaders have provided to keep us safe.  And we will continue to be prayerful and proceed with an abundance of caution.  Your safety and well-being will always be our utmost concern.” Fortunately, our exercise of religion is as much a function of the President, by exercising the keys, authorizing how we do that as much as personal conscience, which of course our faith invites us to keep aligned in good faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Though the first to stand up for protecting the free exercise of religion, I think the Church has avoided conflicting interpretations by focusing her practices on our safety and well-being, per President Nelson’s remarks: “We are grateful for the helpful direction that government, health, and civic leaders have provided to keep us safe.  And we will continue to be prayerful and proceed with an abundance of caution.  Your safety and well-being will always be our utmost concern.” Fortunately, our exercise of religion is as much a function of the President, by exercising the keys, authorizing how we do that as much as personal conscience, which of course our faith invites us to keep aligned in good faith.

We are indeed blessed to have had apostolic keys and prophetic leadership to see us through the hardships of the pandemic thus far. I might even go so far as to say we could continue to rely on “home church,” Zoom gatherings and other internet technology indefinitely, for as long as needed. 

 

However, I would not — nor should anyone else — presume to tell those of other faith traditions that such measures are in any way optimal or even adequate for their own respective liturgies. 

 

This is why I’m glad the chief executive has declared houses of worship to be among the “essential services” at this stage of the pandemic, so long as attendees manifest a willingness to abide by public health guidelines such as those laid out by the CDC. Access to religious gatherings is at least as important to society as access to bars and abortion clinics. 

 

When I champion religious liberty and other First Amendment freedoms, it is not just for my own benefit or that of other Latter-day Saints. It is for the benefit of people of faith everywhere. 

 

I think of our Catholic friends and neighbors who have had to go without receiving Communion, an important part of their worship and something I’m not sure could be accomplished without in-person gatherings in sacred spaces. Perhaps Rory or Miserere Nobis could enlighten us on that. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Though the first to stand up for protecting the free exercise of religion, I think the Church has avoided conflicting interpretations by focusing her practices on our safety and well-being, per President Nelson’s remarks: “We are grateful for the helpful direction that government, health, and civic leaders have provided to keep us safe.  And we will continue to be prayerful and proceed with an abundance of caution.  Your safety and well-being will always be our utmost concern.” Fortunately, our exercise of religion is as much a function of the President, by exercising the keys, authorizing how we do that as much as personal conscience, which of course our faith invites us to keep aligned in good faith.

I agree. My cousin and i were talking about the distinction between rights and responsibilities. Some of the discussions my family and people have had around freedom to me lately have often discussed more the rights and less so the responsibilities and obligations we have towards each other. Though i’ve had my disagreements before with several if my relatives it’s never been so apparent as now.  IMO This isn’t an experience that can be fully met with individualistic focus and thinking that focuses on individual rights. It’s one that needs to have a sense of obligation to the community as a whole and that what is best for us at large may not be best for the individual at each moment but will give us all better safety and security in the long run. 
 I’m glad for Nelson’s direction in leading the whole of the church in a cautious and careful way. And i’m sure they’ve thought of several concerns that may arise in communities where some may be more...eager...to jump into worship. I just hope and pray that local leaders will follow wisdom and be cautious as well. 
 

 

with luv,

BD 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Church of course is more cautious ...

 

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I just hope and pray that local leaders will follow wisdom and be cautious as well.

I can only speak of my corner of the Vineyard, but here the Church's caution has always exceeded the guidance of our government leaders. For example, our places of worship are currently allowed to hold services with up to ten people in attendance, not including those conducting the service. Our Area President's response: nope. He did, as I mentioned above, just authorise the reopening of chapels for council meetings up to ten people in a 40m2 space, but no worship ... and no indication that in-person worship is immanent.

We closed our buildings before any government instruction, and now we are not really reopening them.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Freedom of religion and freedom of peaceable assembly are both constitutional rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. It is not unprecedented for the executive branch of the federal government to intervene when states abridge human rights. It happened during the civil rights crises of the 1960s. 
 

But I’m hoping such will not be necessary at present. If people can be allowed to go to bars, they ought to be allowed to go to houses of worship under careful and stringent public health guidelines such as those set out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

They can go to church in most locations. In many states of course the occupancy limits are lower for restaurants and bars and churches. On a practical level these are not being followed in many restaurants, bars, and churches.

In all but a few areas the Church could proceed with Phase 1 in their reopening plan either now or in the next few weeks. Whether the Church does so is up to the apostles. I suspect the church leaders will be holding us back more than government directives.

Under the 10th amendment the executive does not have the authority to decide what is essential. If it is a constitutional issue that falls to the courts and not the executive.

Edited May 25, 2020 by The Nehor

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We are indeed blessed to have had apostolic keys and prophetic leadership to see us through the hardships of the pandemic thus far. I might even go so far as to say we could continue to rely on “home church,” Zoom gatherings and other internet technology indefinitely, for as long as needed. 

However, I would not — nor should anyone else — presume to tell those of other faith traditions that such measures are in any way optimal or even adequate for their own respective liturgies. 

This is why I’m glad the chief executive has declared houses of worship to be among the “essential services” at this stage of the pandemic, so long as attendees manifest a willingness to abide by public health guidelines such as those laid out by the CDC. Access to religious gatherings is at least as important to society as access to bars and abortion clinics. 

When I champion religious liberty and other First Amendment freedoms, it is not just for my own benefit or that of other Latter-day Saints. It is for the benefit of people of faith everywhere. 

I think of our Catholic friends and neighbors who have had to go without receiving Communion, an important part of their worship and something I’m not sure could be accomplished without in-person gatherings in sacred spaces. Perhaps Rory or Miserere Nobis could enlighten us on that. 

I would say a temporary suspension of mass gatherings (however that might be defined by jurisdiction) to protect public health is not an abridgment of the obligation to protect it: "Religious freedom is not absolute. Limits on religious activities are appropriate where necessary to protect compelling interests, such as the life, property, health, or safety of others. But such limitations should be truly necessary, rather than an excuse for abridging religious freedom." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/religious-freedom?lang=eng

In this sense the Church continues to defend it while supporting governments efforts to temporarily limit mass gatherings. Some have a greater voice in these decisions than others, which decisions generally balance the public health science with economic. political and other sciences. Naturally we will see as much abuse as good faith in exercising this political power across the globe.

The Catholic churches have also suspended services and masses, including public participation for masses and other events at the Vatican. Of course, the fulness of the Gospel offers that advantage: Alma 32:10, "Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?" And our Prophet has given guidance for those for whom it may not be wise to have visitors prepare and bless the sacrament for them.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I agree. My cousin and i were talking about the distinction between rights and responsibilities. Some of the discussions my family and people have had around freedom to me lately have often discussed more the rights and less so the responsibilities and obligations we have towards each other. Though i’ve had my disagreements before with several if my relatives it’s never been so apparent as now.  IMO This isn’t an experience that can be fully met with individualistic focus and thinking that focuses on individual rights. It’s one that needs to have a sense of obligation to the community as a whole and that what is best for us at large may not be best for the individual at each moment but will give us all better safety and security in the long run. 
 I’m glad for Nelson’s direction in leading the whole of the church in a cautious and careful way. And i’m sure they’ve thought of several concerns that may arise in communities where some may be more...eager...to jump into worship. I just hope and pray that local leaders will follow wisdom and be cautious as well. 

with luv,

BD 

Yes, I would think being a light of the world entails balancing our right to exercise conscience (whether we can enter a building to gather or not) with the responsibility to protect each other and our communities. Where I live, I am seeing a very careful phasing and coordination (that's coordination between layers of Church oversight as well as government) of where and how we come back to the chapel.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I can only speak of my corner of the Vineyard, but here the Church's caution has always exceeded the guidance of our government leaders. For example, our places of worship are currently allowed to hold services with up to ten people in attendance, not including those conducting the service. Our Area President's response: nope. He did, as I mentioned above, just authorise the reopening of chapels for council meetings up to ten people in a 40m2 space, but no worship ... and no indication that in-person worship is immanent.

We closed our buildings before any government instruction, and now we are not really reopening them.

Same here.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I would think being a light of the world entails balancing our right to exercise conscience (whether we can enter a building to gather or not) with the responsibility to protect each other and our communities. Where I live, I am seeing a very careful phasing and coordination (that's coordination between layers of Church oversight as well as government) of where and how we come back to the chapel.

Where i’m at i’m seeing a mix. I see a bit if caution, monitoring, etc that I appreciate. But also moving ahead more rapidly than we should be. And a substantial portion of the population frankly ignoring social distancing measures for one reason or anothrer.  My ward starts meeting in I think 2 weeks and with only half the ward. One thing i’d like them to be more explicit on with church attendance in general are the risk factors that increase the likelihood of severe cases. I see focus in older adults and mention of such. And then mention of some underlying conditions like hypertension and diabetes. But often it’s kinda brushed over that obesity also is a risk factor. Said factor effect a good percentage of the US population. MMM
 

i do think they’re trying where i live. But said trying can have blind spots that could escalate problems. 

 

with luv, 

BD

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Where i’m at i’m seeing a mix. I see a bit if caution, monitoring, etc that I appreciate. But also moving ahead more rapidly than we should be. And a substantial portion of the population frankly ignoring social distancing measures for one reason or anothrer.  My ward starts meeting in I think 2 weeks and with only half the ward. One thing i’d like them to be more explicit on with church attendance in general are the risk factors that increase the likelihood of severe cases. I see focus in older adults and mention of such. And then mention of some underlying conditions like hypertension and diabetes. But often it’s kinda brushed over that obesity also is a risk factor. Said factor effect a good percentage of the US population. MMM
 

i do think they’re trying where i live. But said trying can have blind spots that could escalate problems. 

 

with luv, 

BD

 

From what I've seen of the meeting measures, I am very impressed with what the Church has put out (I have a lot of connections with epidemiologists). With that guidance, the Church has also encouraged members not to attend if they feel at all at risk or uncomfortable. Since the start of this (February/March), our ward (including our bishop from the pulpit) has advised members to stay up to date with the official public health websites with regards to reliable information for informing their decisions. It seems to me this can and will  continue through various EQ and RS venues.

Edited May 25, 2020 by CV75

[sweetpotatoh]

We haven’t returned here in San Diego County. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

From what I've seen of the meeting measures, I am very impressed with what the Church has put out (I have a lot of connections with epidemiologists). With that guidance, the Church has also encouraged members not to attend if they feel at all at risk or uncomfortable. Since the start of this (February/March), our ward (including our bishop from the pulpit) has advised members to stay up to date with the official public health websites with regards to reliable information for informing their decisions. It seems to me this can and will  continue through various EQ and RS venues.

Likewise, our local leadership has been very conscientious. We haven’t yet returned to holding meetings, but the stake presidency will meet tomorrow night with bishops and collectively they will seek inspiration on the details that will be worked out. Meanwhile, our bishop, for one, has solicited Input from the ward membership. 

[Michael Sudworth]

On 5/24/2020 at 9:32 AM, BlueDreams said:

Freedom of religions and assembly can be maintained by things like zoom conferences and online services. The right to excercise religion can still be maintained without meeting in person. My 11 am RS meeting is a

I respectfully, but very strongly disagree.

Whether for political activism or religious worship, there is a true power and freedom in being together *physically.*. In my view, there is an inherent right to assemble -- in person.   If we deny that, we must put 3rd party intermediaries (zoom, AWS, Verizon, Comcast, etc...) smack dab in the middle of the assembly.  Assuming this assembly is on private property, folks have the right to *exclude* others from their assembly.  The only way to guarantee this is by physical assembly.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Michael Sudworth

[provoman]

 

54 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I respectfully, but very strongly disagree.

Whether for political activism or religious worship, there is a true power and freedom in being together *physically.*. In my view, there is an inherent right to assemble -- in person.   If we deny that, we must put 3rd party intermediaries (zoom, AWS, Verizon, Comcast, etc...) smack dab in the middle of the assembly.  Assuming this assembly is on private property, folks have the right to *exclude* others from their assembly.  The only way to guarantee this is by physical assembly.

Fundemental rights have restrictions. Elder Oaks gave a statement to Congress as to what standard Courts should use when determining restrictions on religion. 

I think Federal Courts would find limitations placed on religious assembles the least restrictive means to acheive a compelling government interest.  

[provoman]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

From what I've seen of the meeting measures, I am very impressed with what the Church has put out (I have a lot of connections with epidemiologists). With that guidance, the Church has also encouraged members not to attend if they feel at all at risk or uncomfortable. Since the start of this (February/March), our ward (including our bishop from the pulpit) has advised members to stay up to date with the official public health websites with regards to reliable information for informing their decisions. It seems to me this can and will  continue through various EQ and RS venues.

I would rather that the First Presidency had used the words "must" and/or "required" instead of "should".

I have seen one post wherein the Stake leadership representative interpretted the should as may.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Likewise, our local leadership has been very conscientious. We haven’t yet returned to holding meetings, but the stake presidency will meet tomorrow night with bishops and collectively they will seek inspiration on the details that will be worked out. Meanwhile, our bishop, for one, has solicited Input from the ward membership. 

That's what our leadership is doing, but with regards to attitudes about coming back (eagerness/reticence, etc.) and not so much about safety protocols/procedures (whether new ideas or reactions to the Church's online postings).

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, provoman said:

I would rather that the First Presidency had used the words "must" and/or "required" instead of "should".

I have seen one post wherein the Stake leadership representative interpretted the should as may.

Perhaps that stake president would appreciate some feedback in that regard. At least he should! In the context of the April and May letters, like the scriptures (some 175 times in the D&C!  ), "should"  conveys obligation and duty.

[Michael Sudworth]

56 minutes ago, provoman said:

I think Federal Courts would find limitations placed on religious assembles the least restrictive means to acheive a compelling government interest.  

True.  Courts must eventually decide the limits of executive power in emergencies.  I suspect that Courts will lean towards restricting executive fiat.

[Scott Lloyd]

We got an advisory from our bishop regarding returning to Church. The plan is to resume meetings on the last Sunday in June. Details are to be worked out by individual bishops for the respective wards in our stake. Pursuant to that, our bishopric and ward council will be meeting this week.

I've also been advised that authorization to continue administration of the sacrament at home will continue in our ward for an indefinite period, even after the  ward begins to meet again for sacrament meeting. This, of course, is to accommodate individuals who do not think it advisable for them to begin attending group gatherings again. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Ragerunner]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We got an advisory from our bishop regarding returning to Church. The plan is to resume meetings on the last Sunday in June. Details are to be worked out by individual bishops for the respective wards in our stake. Pursuant to that, our bishopric and ward council will be meeting this week.

I've also been advised that authorization to continue administration of the sacrament at home will continue in our ward for an indefinite period, even after the  ward begins to meet again for sacrament meeting. This, of course, is to accommodate individuals who do not think it advisable for them to begin attending group gatherings again. 

What region or country is this in?