pogi Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) Any out-of-stater’s seeing similar letters from your Area Presidencies? Florida, Texas, Arizona, California? Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 1 hour ago, provoman said: I was not thrilled about it. There is already contention between people that uses misinformation to shame/mock others. I my opinion the last thing needed is religious self-righteousness added to the issue. Also it is a bit of a bother that someone would only wear a mask because a spiritual leader said so. If nothing else, it gets the Church off the hook from those who would falsely claim that it is not observing public health directives or not being “a good citizen.”
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, pogi said: Any out-of-strater’s seeing similar letters from your Area Presidencies? Florida, Texas, Arizona, California? In areas where the Church is not predominant, there might not be as great a need for such an ecclesiastical directive. In fact, I’m wondering now if the Utah Area Presidency message might have stemmed in part from interaction between local officials and Church leadership. Edited July 11, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
pogi Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If nothing else, it gets the Church off the hook from those who would falsely claim that it is not observing public health directives or not being “a good citizen.” Except now they are going to have a whole new group of people on their backs for supporting directives of a government who is seeking to squash their constitutional rights.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 1 minute ago, pogi said: Except now they are going to have a whole new group of people on their backs for supporting directives of a government who is seeking to squash their constitutional rights. As I said, darned if they do and darned if they don’t. 1
pogi Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In areas where the Church is not predominant, there might not be as great a need for such an ecclesiastical directive. Covid is greater risk in those areas and there is arguably a greater need for the message there. "Latter-day Sainst are not immune" (I loved that line!) in those areas either, and the call to be good citizens by wearing face coverings is perhaps more needed there than here. We have around 400,000 members in Texas, 1/2 million members in Arizona, and over 700,000 in California. That is 2 million people that could use this message, especially in these areas that are much higher risk than Utah. Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, pogi said: Covid is greater risk in those areas and there is arguably a greater need for the message there. "Latter-day Sainst are not immune" (I loved that line!) in those areas either, and the call to be good citizens by wearing face coverings is perhaps more needed there than here. We have around 400,000 members in Texas, 1/2 million members in Arizona, and over 700,000 in California. That is 2 million people that could use this message, especially in these areas that are much higher risk than Utah. I’m not saying the general risk is not great in those areas. But the need to hammer local Church membership about following public health directives might not be as necessary where Church membership is not predominant. Again, I think it possible, if not likely, that the Utah Area Presidency message grew out of behind-the-scenes discussion with state and/or local government leadership. If government officials in Texas approached the Church leadership in the state about Church members ignoring public health directives, I think a message from the Area Presidency or Area Seventies there would be quickly forthcoming. Edited July 11, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Popular Post juliann Posted July 11, 2020 Popular Post Posted July 11, 2020 2 hours ago, pogi said: I was thrilled to receive this letter from the Area Authority, especially after reading this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah-group-organizes-flash-mobs-at-grocery-stores-to-oppose-face-masks/ar-BB16BmdP There is a new kind of mob/protesters in town, popping up at a grocery store near you, placing you and your loved ones at risk. Just when you think people can’t possibly be anymore disgusting. They should be wearing masks just to hide their jerk faces. We may never know about the efficacy of masks. But at this point it does send a message that you are concerned about others rather than only yourself. I shop at Harmons which requires a mask. One lady came in without one. I merely assumed she had a physical need to be mask free. One thing masks do for me is make me extra aware of germ spreading when I’m in public places. 9
provoman Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If nothing else, it gets the Church off the hook from those who would falsely claim that it is not observing public health directives or not being “a good citizen.” Good point.
pogi Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not saying the general risk is not great in those areas. But the need to hammer local Church membership about following public health directives might not be as necessary where Church membership is not predominant. I don't view this letter as "hammering" local Church membership. Although some could use a good hammer about now. It shouldn't be done out of necessity as you state, but as our Areas Presidency states - it should be done out of being "good citizens" and "promoting the health and general welfare of all." 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Again, I think it possible, if not likely, that the Utah Area Presidency message grew out of behind-the-scenes discussion with state and/or local government leadership. If government officials in Texas approached the Church leadership in the state about Church members ignoring public health directives, I think a message from the Area Presidency or Area Seventies there would be quickly forthcoming. There is probably truth to that. Hopefully other Area Presidencies will take note and follow the good example set here. 1
pogi Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, juliann said: We may never know about the efficacy of masks. As the Area Presidency rightly pointed out, however: Quote A growing chorus of medical authorities has confirmed that the simple wearing of a face covering when in public and when social distancing is not possible will significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19. This is true both indoors and outdoors. There certainly is growing evidence: Quote The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25 697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERS. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext (Courtesy of Calm). Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi
Calm Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 4 hours ago, Rain said: Yes. I only know this through a travel group I am in. One of the people traveled to the Marshal Islands for work - special approval for some kind of essential work (travel nurse?, can't remember). He said there were no cases there. He and his family had to quarantine for 24 days. This was not just a self isolation thing. They weren't allowed to go outside at all. Food was brought to them and placed at their door. During the time they were tested 4 times. It wouldn't make sense for the first presidency to tell members there they needed to wear masks. Marshallese are at high risk here in the States (my niece is adopted from there and is paying attention for her own health), so such caution by them is very, very wise given the overpopulation and poverty level of many there. One of the cities there is called the Armpit of the Pacific.
Calm Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: “Area authority” has been outmoded terminology for many years. Say Area President or Area Presidency or Area Seventy. I made a special effort to check how the letter had it just for you.
Calm Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: It would be less efficient to put out a general directive and then expect area presidencies to modify it. Better to let each area presidency respond to local conditions as appropriate. But it would be very easy to add the names of the First Presidency to these letters to add their authority clout.
bluebell Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 Do we have any data yet on how mask mandates in SLC and Summit counties are impacting the rate of virus spread?
Peacefully Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) No general letter from the area presidency here in North Texas. I did see the letter from the area presidency sent out to leaders saying that masks should be worn to sacrament. Then our stake came out with a letter saying masks were recommended but optional. Talk about mixed messages. So many here think they are giving up freedom by wearing a mask. With 10000 cases a day, it seems like a small price to pay to get back some of our freedoms. Edited July 11, 2020 by Peacefully 3
Calm Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 4 hours ago, CA Steve said: Pointing out exceptions is not a good idea as it seems way too many people think they are the exceptions. The letters would be less likely to be used to point out exceptions (for example, “unless otherwise directed” implies there are exceptions, people who are being told differently) if customized to the people it is sent to imo. And imo less likely to be dismissed...as in, oh they are just worried about those Utahns. Area specific letters with both area and First presidencies seems the best approach to me. Shows concern in a more personal fashion so less likely to be ignored as meant for the other guy, yet carries clout of the top men so less likely to be ignored with ‘these guys are nothing’. It would be nice to see them read in church by the Bishop if possible (some wards are rotating the bishopric with sections of the ward so the bishop may not be available, he may have health risks as well and be staying home) as well with a “we are directed from the First Presidency to read these’. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 9 minutes ago, Calm said: But it would be very easy to add the names of the First Presidency to these letters to add their authority clout. I think there is wisdom in consistency. Earlier, you made this remark, with which I agree: QUOTE ”Maybe better to respond to local conditions to make it clear leadership is paying attention to needs of members rather than just treating everyone like they are Americans. That way more likely to get compliance where it is needed. Plus it is the way it should be given most members are not Americans.” END QUOTE I assume you would not advocate tacking the First Presidency signatures onto a similar message from the Area Presidency in another part of the world. For the sake of consistency, I don’t believe it ought to be done here either. Let the Area Presidency act in their calling and role — and let the Church members grow accustomed to seeing that happen.
CA Steve Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: It would be less efficient to put out a general directive and then expect area presidencies to modify it. Better to let each area presidency respond to local conditions as appropriate. It is a global pandemic, not an area pandemic. If we (the human race) are going to limit the impact of this disease, the response needs to be global. What better opportunity for a prophet to show leadership on a global level. Edited July 11, 2020 by CA Steve 1
CA Steve Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Calm said: Area specific letters with both area and First presidencies seems the best approach to me No they are not. We are not dealing with an area problem, we are dealing with a global one. 1
Calm Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Do we have any data yet on how mask mandates in SLC and Summit counties are impacting the rate of virus spread? How long have the mandates been in place?
Calm Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I assume you would not advocate tacking the First Presidency signatures onto a similar message from the Area Presidency in another part of the world. For the sake of consistency, I don’t believe it ought to be done here either. Let the Area Presidency act in their calling and role — and let the Church members grow accustomed to seeing that happen. No, your assumption is very wrong. I don’t really understand why you would even make that assumption. Of course they should be having the First Presidency signatures for every letter sent out if they are on the letters at all. Are they not leaders of the entire church? Should they not show as much regard for Marshallese members as Mapleton? Edited July 11, 2020 by Calm
TheTanakas Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 13 hours ago, Calm said: I agree that it would be more effective to come from the First Presidency. I hope this happens, but I understand why they left it to the appropriate authority. The First Presidency has not felt it important enough or a revelation to make that kind of announcement to a wider audience.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, CA Steve said: No they are not. We are not dealing with an area problem, we are dealing with a global one. There has been general direction aplenty from Church leadership during this pandemic. But I agree with Calm that one-size-fits-all direction can be less effective than guidance tailor-made to a specific area — which is why we have Area Presidencies and stake presidencies and bishoprics and Branch presidencies. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2020 Author Posted July 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, Calm said: No, your assumption is very wrong. I don’t really understand why you would even make that assumption. Of course they should be having the First Presidency signatures for every letter sent out if they are on the letters at all. Are they not leaders of the entire church? Should they not show as much regard for Marshallese members as Mapleton? Then why involve the Area Presidency at all?
Recommended Posts