President Oaks Address on the Need for a Church

[Fether]

21 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Why do the people who insist on being political get a pass while people like Nuclear are made to feel as if they are doing something wrong?

We can talk about the problem with bringing up politics in a different thread if we want. But we are talking about Nuclear’s spiritual well-being and right now and I don’t think 2-3 people bringing up politics in EQ is really the reason he isn’t going

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

We can talk about the problem with bringing up politics in a different thread if we want. But we are talking about Nuclear’s spiritual well-being and right now and I don’t think 2-3 people bringing up politics in EQ is really the reason he isn’t going

It is because they ran out of brownies at the last ward dinner before he got one isn’t it?

[Peacefully]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

We can talk about the problem with bringing up politics in a different thread if we want. But we are talking about Nuclear’s spiritual well-being and right now and I don’t think 2-3 people bringing up politics in EQ is really the reason he isn’t going

I’ll talk about what i want to talk about, thx! Do you know him?

Edited October 19, 2021 by Peacefully

[Fether]

48 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I’ll talk about what i want to talk about, thx! Do you know him?

No, I don’t know him. But I know a little bit about humbling one’s self and overcoming the sin of pride and impatience

[nuclearfuels]

10 hours ago, Fether said:

Why do you think some use this as a reason to not go to EQ while others go without being phased by it?

Not sure. I'm sure the high priests and elders in attendance are more than capable

 

[Tacenda]

I wonder if there's a problem with attendance since the pandemic and families finding they get more spirituality by teaching in the home vs. what other's teach at church. Maybe it's part of the get a spiritual experience on your own vs. relying on what others tell you to think. 

[kimpearson]

I am a bit surprised by the narrowness of the discussion.  I have talked to many people who struggle with church attendance and boredom is not the main reason.  It's something they might mention but the primary reason is that they don't feel church is a place of safety where they are fully accepted.  They often feel like their views are not strictly aligned with the vocal majority at church and if they show any part of their true feelings, they will be looked down upon.  They often mention struggling with doubts and when they express those doubts at church, they feel attacked rather than comforted.  For most LGTBQ+ members and many of their families, church attendance is a weekly reminder that they don't fit the life model the the Church champions in every lesson and most talks.  For any who sympathize with queer members it feels like any discussion of the increasing sins of the world is code for gay marriage acceptance and transgender rights acceptance.  Many are struggling in their marriages or have rebellious kids and have done everything the Church told them to do such at temple marriage, family scripture study and daily prayer.  They then attend church where person after person will testify that the Lord blesses those who do these things and will be helped with their problems.  These struggling members feel no help even after doing these things and Sunday just increases their feelings of shame and pain.  In my opinion, President Oaks was only addressing a very small minority of those who struggle with church attendance.  It was those members he could squarely place the blame on their shoulders.  Like every church leader recently, he makes no mention of things that church leaders and active members are doing themselves that discourage church attendance.  Based on the discussions above, I guess my experience must be unique and the rest of you only know bored and spoiled members who only go to church to be entertained and since they are not, they quit attending.

[Canadiandude]

1 minute ago, kimpearson said:

I am a bit surprised by the narrowness of the discussion.  I have talked to many people who struggle with church attendance and boredom is not the main reason.  It's something they might mention but the primary reason is that they don't feel church is a place of safety where they are fully accepted.  They often feel like their views are not strictly aligned with the vocal majority at church and if they show any part of their true feelings, they will be looked down upon.  They often mention struggling with doubts and when they express those doubts at church, they feel attacked rather than comforted.  For most LGTBQ+ members and many of their families, church attendance is a weekly reminder that they don't fit the life model the the Church champions in every lesson and most talks.  For any who sympathize with queer members it feels like any discussion of the increasing sins of the world is code for gay marriage acceptance and transgender rights acceptance.  Many are struggling in their marriages or have rebellious kids and have done everything the Church told them to do such at temple marriage, family scripture study and daily prayer.  They then attend church where person after person will testify that the Lord blesses those who do these things and will be helped with their problems.  These struggling members feel no help even after doing these things and Sunday just increases their feelings of shame and pain.  In my opinion, President Oaks was only addressing a very small minority of those who struggle with church attendance.  It was those members he could squarely place the blame on their shoulders.  Like every church leader recently, he makes no mention of things that church leaders and active members are doing themselves that discourage church attendance.  Based on the discussions above, I guess my experience must be unique and the rest of you only know bored and spoiled members who only go to church to be entertained and since they are not, they quit attending.

Exactly this. ^^^

[bOObOO]

18 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I am a bit surprised by the narrowness of the discussion.  I have talked to many people who struggle with church attendance and boredom is not the main reason.  It's something they might mention but the primary reason is that they don't feel church is a place of safety where they are fully accepted.  They often feel like their views are not strictly aligned with the vocal majority at church and if they show any part of their true feelings, they will be looked down upon.  They often mention struggling with doubts and when they express those doubts at church, they feel attacked rather than comforted.  For most LGTBQ+ members and many of their families, church attendance is a weekly reminder that they don't fit the life model the the Church champions in every lesson and most talks.  For any who sympathize with queer members it feels like any discussion of the increasing sins of the world is code for gay marriage acceptance and transgender rights acceptance.  Many are struggling in their marriages or have rebellious kids and have done everything the Church told them to do such at temple marriage, family scripture study and daily prayer.  They then attend church where person after person will testify that the Lord blesses those who do these things and will be helped with their problems.  These struggling members feel no help even after doing these things and Sunday just increases their feelings of shame and pain.  In my opinion, President Oaks was only addressing a very small minority of those who struggle with church attendance.  It was those members he could squarely place the blame on their shoulders.  Like every church leader recently, he makes no mention of things that church leaders and active members are doing themselves that discourage church attendance.  Based on the discussions above, I guess my experience must be unique and the rest of you only know bored and spoiled members who only go to church to be entertained and since they are not, they quit attending.

Whatever other members of the Church are thinking or saying or doing during worship services, none of that should be a barrier to an individual's own thoughts and words and actions when attending worship services to worship God and the Lord. 

[2BizE]

My understanding about this October GC talk by Pres. Oaks is the brethren are worried because so many people are not returning to church meetings. There is a general sense that church leaders are becoming irrelevant.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

There is a general sense that church leaders are becoming irrelevant.

church leaders or church?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I am a bit surprised by the narrowness of the discussion.  I have talked to many people who struggle with church attendance and boredom is not the main reason.  It's something they might mention but the primary reason is that they don't feel church is a place of safety where they are fully accepted.  They often feel like their views are not strictly aligned with the vocal majority at church and if they show any part of their true feelings, they will be looked down upon.  They often mention struggling with doubts and when they express those doubts at church, they feel attacked rather than comforted.  For most LGTBQ+ members and many of their families, church attendance is a weekly reminder that they don't fit the life model the the Church champions in every lesson and most talks.  For any who sympathize with queer members it feels like any discussion of the increasing sins of the world is code for gay marriage acceptance and transgender rights acceptance.  Many are struggling in their marriages or have rebellious kids and have done everything the Church told them to do such at temple marriage, family scripture study and daily prayer.  They then attend church where person after person will testify that the Lord blesses those who do these things and will be helped with their problems.  These struggling members feel no help even after doing these things and Sunday just increases their feelings of shame and pain.  In my opinion, President Oaks was only addressing a very small minority of those who struggle with church attendance.  It was those members he could squarely place the blame on their shoulders.  Like every church leader recently, he makes no mention of things that church leaders and active members are doing themselves that discourage church attendance.  Based on the discussions above, I guess my experience must be unique and the rest of you only know bored and spoiled members who only go to church to be entertained and since they are not, they quit attending.

In regards to the bold, I don't think he makes a mention of it because he's trying to make a specific point that is irrelevant to that.  It doesn't really matter what is keeping us from attending church, choosing not to attend is a choice we make that we can't lay at the feet of anyone else. 

Having said that, as I said before I do think that ward leaders (and ward members) have a responsibility to help the ward be a welcoming place and not an echo chamber and that when it's not people need to step in and work to correct it.  Sometimes wards are allowed to go on for too long in unhealthy ways because leaders don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or cause any contention, but sometimes people's toes may need to be stepped on, if they are making it hard for the spirit to be present.

[nuclearfuels]

5 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Whatever other members of the Church are thinking or saying or doing during worship services, none of that should be a barrier to an individual's own thoughts and words and actions when attending worship services to worship God and the Lord. 

Yes. 

I believe this is what President Oaks was speaking to

[2BizE]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

church leaders or church?

Both.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

In regards to the bold, I don't think he makes a mention of it because he's trying to make a specific point that is irrelevant to that.  It doesn't really matter what is keeping us from attending church, choosing not to attend is a choice we make that we can't lay at the feet of anyone else. 

Having said that, as I said before I do think that ward leaders (and ward members) have a responsibility to help the ward be a welcoming place and not an echo chamber and that when it's not people need to step in and work to correct it.  Sometimes wards are allowed to go on for too long in unhealthy ways because leaders don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or cause any contention, but sometimes people's toes may need to be stepped on, if they are making it hard for the spirit to be present.

I agree with your first paragraph. 
 

But what would you say needs to be done to eliminate the “echo chamber”? More debating or point/counterpoint discussion? Challenging or contradicting of Church teachings? While there may be a time and a setting for such a thing, I’m afraid that at church, a good many folks would find it repellant, and we would end up with a yet bigger problem. 
 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Glenn101]

On 10/17/2021 at 9:25 AM, bluebell said:

Ultimately what we get out of church is our responsibility, no one else's.

I believe that is the situation, in the proverbial nutshell.

I attend church via Zoom mostly, not by choice, but out of necessity owing to physical problems, especially those of my wife. That forced social distancing also distances us somewhat from the communal spirit which we can feel when in physical attendance. My own hearing is so bad now that I really can make out but little of what is being said, but I can listen with my heart to people I know to be good and true, especially when bearing their testimonies, and feel the presence of the Spirit. There are times when it is lacking, and I have realized that when such is the case, it is always because of the attitude, the spirit I bring with me whether in person or via a remote attendance.

Glenn

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with your first paragraph. 
 

But what would you say needs to be done to eliminate the “echo chamber”? More debating or point/counterpoint discussion? Challenging or contradicting of Church teachings? While there may be a time and a setting fir such a thing, I’m afraid that at church, a good many folks would find it repellant, and we would end up with a yet bigger problem. 
 

I think an atmosphere where ward members know they can speak—with sincerity—their honest thoughts and ask honest questions and won’t be met with contention and self-righteousness can go along way.

A ward where everyone can be edified together whether you are a liberal saint, a conservative saint, a fundamental saint, a progressive saint, or whatever.

Not that everyone has to agree or every opinion gets equal airtime. But that members feel safe being their honest selves—and they allow their honest selves to be seen because they don’t fear being different—in that space, even if other members don’t necessarily agree with them.

Edited October 20, 2021 by bluebell

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

... A ward where everyone can be edified together whether you are a liberal saint, a conservative saint, a fundamental saint, a progressive saint, or whatever. ...

Since it is President Oaks's address that spawned the thread, as then-Elder Oaks also said once (and some people may think it is ironic that it is he who said it), there is some truth in liberalism, and there some truth in conservatism, [and, probably, there is truth in several other "-isms," as well] but there is no salvation in any of them.  

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Challenging or contradicting of Church teachings?

Maybe? We are a couple of months from starting our study of the Old Testament, which means a potential round of discussion about creation (and Creationism vs. Evolutionism). I don't think it is too far fetched to say that the pro-Creationist viewpoint has long been privileged in our Sunday School classes. If a teacher decides to have the class read from Dr, Coffin's pamphlet published in a current OT Institute manual, would it be appropriate to counter the teacher's opinion with a contradictory opinion? Four years ago, in our SS class, it was the question of global/local flood that was briefly brought up, and I chose not to contradict the teacher's belief that the flood must be global. Is there room in our SS classes to take something that is not officially Church teaching (though these things often feel quasi-officially taught by the Church) and charitably offer counterpoint?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe? We are a couple of months from starting our study of the Old Testament, which means a potential round of discussion about creation (and Creationism vs. Evolutionism). I don't think it is too far fetched to say that the pro-Creationist viewpoint has long been privileged in our Sunday School classes. If a teacher decides to have the class read from Dr, Coffin's pamphlet published in a current OT Institute manual, would it be appropriate to counter the teacher's opinion with a contradictory opinion? Four years ago, in our SS class, it was the question of global/local flood that was briefly brought up, and I chose not to contradict the teacher's belief that the flood must be global. Is there room in our SS classes to take something that is not officially Church teaching (though these things often feel quasi-officially taught by the Church) and charitably offer counterpoint?

Maybe it would be good for the teacher (or class member) to mention that these sorts of things can be taken figuratively, literally or both, but the important thing is to charitably apply one's beliefs to keeping the covenants. We "liken all scriptures unto us."

Edited October 20, 2021 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think an atmosphere where ward members know they can speak—with sincerity—their honest thoughts and ask honest questions and won’t be met with contention and self-righteousness can go along way.

A ward where everyone can be edified together whether you are a liberal saint, a conservative saint, a fundamental saint, a progressive saint, or whatever.

Not that everyone has to agree or every opinion gets equal airtime. But that members feel safe being their honest selves—and they allow their honest selves to be seen because they don’t fear being different—in that space, even if other members don’t necessarily agree with them.

There can be a fine line between helping people to feel welcome while being themselves on the one hand and allowing advocacy of views on the other that are in conflict with revealed doctrine or inspired teaching from prophets and apostles — something that ought not happen in a Church setting. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe? We are a couple of months from starting our study of the Old Testament, which means a potential round of discussion about creation (and Creationism vs. Evolutionism). I don't think it is too far fetched to say that the pro-Creationist viewpoint has long been privileged in our Sunday School classes. If a teacher decides to have the class read from Dr, Coffin's pamphlet published in a current OT Institute manual, would it be appropriate to counter the teacher's opinion with a contradictory opinion? Four years ago, in our SS class, it was the question of global/local flood that was briefly brought up, and I chose not to contradict the teacher's belief that the flood must be global. Is there room in our SS classes to take something that is not officially Church teaching (though these things often feel quasi-officially taught by the Church) and charitably offer counterpoint?

In a Church setting, such as a Sunday School class or Relief Society or elders quorum meetings, there should not be protracted dialogue about matters on which the Church has taken no formal position. All class members share the responsibility to avoid that sort of thing, but it primarily rests with the teacher, who has been called of God by priesthood authority and, presumably is thus endowed with the talent and can access the spiritual gifts to tactfully steer the discussion away from potentially contentious and ultimately fruitless back-and-forth. I know from experience that there are ways to do this. 
 

And lest anyone here raise it with me, no, I’m not advocating that Church classes be pablum. There is plenty of scope for stimulating teaching and edification within the confines of an authoritative gospel framework. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There can be a fine line between helping people to feel welcome while being themselves on the one hand and allowing advocacy of views on the other that are in conflict with revealed doctrine or inspired teaching from prophets and apostles — something that ought not happen in a Church setting. 

There is and that’s true. But there is a lot that is sometimes espoused in church that is tradition, culture, and opinion, and I feel it’s impossible for membership to feel command welcome to charitably disagree or share different perspectives. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is and that’s true. But there is a lot that is sometimes espoused in church that is tradition, culture, and opinion, and I feel it’s impossible for membership to feel command welcome to charitably disagree or share different perspectives. 

The “tradition, culture and opinion” might fall within the category of what I characterized as “matters on which the Church has taken no formal position” and thus should not occupy time in a Church setting for protracted discussion. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Since it is President Oaks's address that spawned the thread, as then-Elder Oaks also said once (and some people may think it is ironic that it is he who said it), there is some truth in liberalism, and there some truth in conservatism, [and, probably, there is truth in several other "-isms," as well] but there is no salvation in any of them.  

Surely there is salvation in Mormonism.

Oh wait, we got rid of that word.

Well played, apostles. Well played.