Status of the Church 2.0

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

I don't buy this.

How was expecting people to visit their assigned families monthly and to truly love and serve them crippling their ability to take responsibility and love others?

You are not talking about expecting them to truly love and serve them.  That truly love and serve them can only be an inward change.  You are talking about being "pushed" (your words) by other people to go.

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

The drop off in ministering since the switch has been dramatic. Less people are being reached out to and ministered to than before. How is this better?

 

You saw a drop off.  I, personally, saw an increase.  In 2020 alone my husband visited just one of his families 120-150 times.  It was a good thing he was working from home and didn't have to spend time on the road.  One of those visits was about 12 hours.  A number of them were 2-3 hours.  

The problem with people not ministering is not an accountability call.  The problem was either they never understood the need or they chose not to do it (agency).

Elder Packer: True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior."

As several of us have mentioned,  not all of us were getting visited.  The "accountability" call didn't work for everyone.  The fact that it has dropped off for some was either they didn't really understand the doctrine or they are choosing their agency not to.  Those,  like my husband, who understood the doctrine, didn't drop their responsibility because they didn't really view it as responsibility, but as loving your neighbor.

 So the drop doesn't come from not getting a phone call every month.  It comes from not understanding what lies beneath  it all.

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Rain

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, MacGyver said:

So when did women get this priesthood authority, though? They were never ordained to the priesthood. 

Women don't need to be ordained to have priesthood authority.  

 

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Is [the Savior] asking...for our leaders to hold us less accountable?

Not less accountable, but accountable in a different way, and why not?  Is there some some reason that you believe our leaders gathering numbers of how many are being seen each month was a better system to truly serve and care for each other? 

I think we are just as accountable but in more personal ways.  It's not about numbers now when it was before.  A person can't report that they've visiting all of their people and believe that they've done their duty anymore.  The superficial accountability is over.  We moved to a higher form of ministering.

Besides, we are still being held accountable by our leaders.  Every three months we are still supposed to be meeting with our leaders and telling them what is going on with the people that we have been assigned.  Tell them what their needs are and what we have been doing to meet them.  Why isn't that kind of accountability acceptable?

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Or maybe it’s not working great anywhere and it’ll change back to the way it was. It’s just a program and programs change all the time when they aren’t working.

I doubt we'll go back to requiring a monthly visit and lesson, but I guess we'll see. Hopefully they do something eventually. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If they do change it back you can write them a letter telling them they should have expected it wouldn’t work. Maybe they’ll ask your opinion next time before they change stuff. 

Is this snarky comment really necessary? 

[MacGyver]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not about numbers now when it was before.  A person can't report that they've visiting all of their people and believe that they've done their duty anymore.  The superficial accountability is over.  We moved to a higher form of ministering.

It wasn't about the numbers before. It was always about ministering to people. The numbers helped with accountability and gave us some way to measure ministering. That's gone now and we see what has happened to the level of ministering that is being done. It's gone way down.

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Besides, we are still being held accountable by our leaders.  Every three months we are still supposed to be meeting with our leaders and telling them what is going on with the people that we have been assigned.  Tell them what their needs are and what we have been doing to meet them.  Why isn't that kind of accountability acceptable?

I haven't been interviewed in over two years. I was asked every few months how my families were doing before. I wasn't just asked for some superficial number. I was an Elder's Quorum President twice and served as a counselor multiple times as well. We asked for a real report on how people were doing and what efforts were being made to check on them and serve them under home teaching. 

The expectations (in my ward at least) are way lower now and the effect has been exactly what one would expect.

Edited January 20, 2022 by MacGyver

[MacGyver]

46 minutes ago, Rain said:

You are not talking about expecting them to truly love and serve them.  That truly love and serve them can only be an inward change.  You are talking about being "pushed" (your words) by other people to go.

You won't grow to truly love and serve those who you have stewardship over if you rarely visit them and no one is expecting you to or pushing you to get out of your comfort zone and do it. 

48 minutes ago, Rain said:

The problem with people not ministering is not an accountability call.  The problem was either they never understood the need or they chose not to do it (agency).

Are those who struggled with ministering more or less likely to do it with less accountability?

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My heart goes out to you. Early on in my life I saw visiting teachers/home teachers visit my parents. My dad was inactive, mostly because of severe back pain and couldn't hack the hard bench, in an older church we went to. But he tried to take my mom on occasion so she wouldn't be alone. And therefore he had a fantastic home teacher that cared so much. And my mom had some good ladies visit her. Then after marrying I remember having excellent visiting teachers. It gave me a testimony of the program. And I loved going visiting teaching and my partners. It's bringing tears to my eyes as I speak. I even ran into a former sister that was younger when I visited her and she was a single mom, and she told me I was her favorite visiting teacher. That meant so much to me, I'm pretty insecure about myself and often don't feel people like me. 

In the last 15 or so years, it's all changed. And it might be myself. But it was tough even getting to visit in the homes of the sisters I visit taught. And even a return phone call. Then it became a drop off thing since I couldn't get to speak or see the particular sisters. And then my partner couldn't be bothered to go. And then my visiting teachers were my next door neighbors and they both did drop offs. It became where I felt bad that they spent so much money where all I needed was to have some time with them to hang out. But they were both busy ladies. 

Then I moved to this new ward and it seemed I never got a visit and got a phone call once. And then never heard from her again. And then we had wonderful home teachers but they moved to Boston. He taught at the Ensign college, formally the LDS Business College. He was the institute teacher and was aware of my faith crisis, and wanted me to ask anything I needed about my issues. But I didn't care to do that (I get that here, lol) I was just glad to be with he and his wonderful wife. We had some great visits. And then they gave us a young couple with a young family and it was back to drop offs by her husband so I couldn't feel good about them spending the money. So I just took my husband and I off the whole thing. Probably shouldn't have maybe I'll think about going back. It's just that I think I'm a doubt germ in the eyes of the bishop. He's aware of my situation because I told him first thing, in case he needed to know and I offered my assistance as being a Compassionate Service helper. But that was a dead end as well and I wasn't asked to do anything but take dinner once, and make handouts. Oh well, I'm starting to think I may be the problem. 

Sorry so long...hope I didn't take valuable time away Raingirl. And I hope your ministering people get inspired to do a better job. 

I’m sure you were an awesome visiting teacher.  I would have been thrilled  to have someone like you visit. 

[MacGyver]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Women don't need to be ordained to have priesthood authority.  

 

But men do?

[Raingirl]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not less accountable, but accountable in a different way, and why not?  Is there some some reason that you believe our leaders gathering numbers of how many are being seen each month was a better system to truly serve and care for each other? 

I think we are just as accountable but in more personal ways.  It's not about numbers now when it was before.  A person can't report that they've visiting all of their people and believe that they've done their duty anymore.  The superficial accountability is over.  We moved to a higher form of ministering.

Besides, we are still being held accountable by our leaders.  Every three months we are still supposed to be meeting with our leaders and telling them what is going on with the people that we have been assigned.  Tell them what their needs are and what we have been doing to meet them.  Why isn't that kind of accountability acceptable?

Shouldn’t being accountable involve more than just a report a few times a year? Especially when a large number - perhaps even the majority- of those reports are simply to report that absolutely nothing was done. 

[MacGyver]

12 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

You might want to read the post I linked to again, because that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the endowment ceremony is filled with acts which are priesthood ordinances, or otherwise rely on or call upon or exercise or demonstrate or lay claim to priesthood.  Performance of these acts would be inappropriate for anyone who is not a priesthood holder (which is why the men must be Melchizedek Priesthood holders).  Since we cannot point to a ceremony wherein women are given priesthood, the implication is that they already have it.  And I cite a modern scriptural precedent for priesthood by birthright.

I don't object to you disagreeing, but I don't want what I wrote to be mis-characterized.  

Thanks for the clarification. I disagree that women have the priesthood without being ordained. How would anyone know who has the priesthood and who doesn't without an ordination? And if they presumably have the priesthood, why can't they perform the other ordinances outside the temple?

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I doubt we'll go back to requiring a monthly visit and lesson, but I guess we'll see. Hopefully they do something eventually. 

Is this snarky comment really necessary? 

None of this is necessary, especially since it seems like you aren't interested in a discussion, you just want people to agree with you.

But I wasn't trying to be snarky (I deleted a ton of snarky comments precisely because I don't believe they do any good and I didn't want to go there or be that person).  I was trying to illustrate how silly it sounds for someone--who has very little information or knowledge about how everything was working in the world before the change, and very little information or knowledge on how it's working in the world now--to believe that he knows more about what's going on and what was always going to happen, than the people who do have all of that information and knowledge.

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

It wasn't about the numbers before. It was always about ministering to people. The numbers helped with accountability and gave us some way to measure ministering. That's gone now and we see what has happened to the level of ministering that is being done. It's gone way down.

The way that we were held accountable before was with numbers.  Specifically, the percentages of people who had a visit that month.  All they measured was who had gotten a visit (and by visit, it could be nothing more than a phone call).  And it hasn't gone way down everywhere.

Before the change I hadn't had a visit in years.  Now I still don't get visits but I do have contact.  For me, ministering is working better at meeting my needs now than it ever did before.  

Quote

I haven't been interviewed in over two years. I was asked every few months how my families were doing before. I wasn't just asked for some superficial number. I was an Elder's Quorum President twice and served as a counselor multiple times as well. We asked for a real report on how people were doing and what efforts were being made to check on them and serve them under home teaching.

Then your EQ is being lame.  Talk to the president about it.  You are supposed to be being interviewed every three months.  Some EQ presidencies are better than others.  Yours appears to be dropping the ball on this.

Quote

The expectations (in my ward at least) are way lower now and the effect has been exactly what one would expect.

Sounds like your ward has some work to do.  Reach out and see what you can do to help.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

But men do?

Yes.  Men have to be ordained before they can receive the endowment.  Women do not.  

This is probably a good subject for a different thread though.

[rchorse]

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I don't buy this.

How was expecting people to visit their assigned families monthly and to truly love and serve them crippling their ability to take responsibility and love others?

The drop off in ministering since the switch has been dramatic. Less people are being reached out to and ministered to than before. How is this better?

 

People know when they're only being visited out of obligation or duty. Such visits don't accomplish much. By removing the social pressure and handholding, the visits and other actions that do occur are more likely to be done out of love and genuine concern. In other words, when it happens, it becomes true ministering rather than checking a box. 

So which is better? Less frequent, but genuine, loving ministering or more frequent going through the motions out of obligation. I know which one I prefer.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Shouldn’t being accountable involve more than just a report a few times a year? Especially when a large number - perhaps even the majority- of those reports are simply to report that absolutely nothing was done. 

If they are reporting that nothing was done then the RS and EQ are supposed to step in and intercede, either doing the ministering themselves or assigning new ministers who will do it. 

And I guess opinions will vary on it but I think that reporting every three months is a pretty good system.  It takes a few months to get to know people and build a relationship with them.  And to work out how the personalities that have been assigned to care for each other are meshing.  

Ministers are supposed to reach out to the RS or EQ anytime there is a need that they should know about.  They should not be waiting for a quarterly interview to get the presidencies involved if that is useful.  I know that I've texted by RS president multiple times in one month once concerning a sister when her family had covid and her husband ended up in the hospital.  To let her know what was going on, that meals had been set up, and what else might be needed.

[MacGyver]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

None of this is necessary, especially since it seems like you aren't interested in a discussion, you just want people to agree with you.

But I wasn't trying to be snarky (I deleted a ton of snarky comments precisely because I don't believe they do any good and I didn't want to go there or be that person).  I was trying to illustrate how silly it sounds for someone--who has very little information or knowledge about how everything was working in the world before the change, and very little information or knowledge on how it's working in the world now--to believe that he knows more about what's going on and what was always going to happen, than the people who do have all of that information and knowledge.

I don't claim to know more about what is going on with ministering world wide than the First Presidency does, which is what you appear to be suggesting. I only know what I have observed with my own two eyes and from talking with other people since the change. 

I'm sure that the First Presidency is well aware that a lot less in-home visits and lessons are happening and that there is much less ministering being done overall now since the change. I also believe that they had a pretty good idea that this is what would happen. I believe they were trying to lesson the responsibility and expectations.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Thanks for the clarification. I disagree that women have the priesthood without being ordained. How would anyone know who has the priesthood and who doesn't without an ordination? And if they presumably have the priesthood, why can't they perform the other ordinances outside the temple?

Women don't hold the priesthood.  They function with priesthood authority under certain circumstances.  Those are two different things.  This has been the subject of a few different conference talks in the last couple of years.

[MacGyver]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Men have to be ordained before they can receive the endowment.  Women do not.  

Why do you believe this means that women have the priesthood without being ordained?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MacGyver said:

I also believe that they had a pretty good idea that this is what would happen. I believe they were trying to lesson the responsibility and expectations.

Have they ever done that before?  Stopped requiring the members to do something that God wanted them to do so that the members had less responsibility and expectations?

[MacGyver]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Women don't hold the priesthood.  They function with priesthood authority under certain circumstances.  Those are two different things.  This has been the subject of a few different conference talks in the last couple of years.

They function under the authority of the one who has been ordained and set apart and holds the keys over their calling. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MacGyver said:

Why do you believe this means that women have the priesthood without being ordained?

Operating under the authority of the priesthood, and being ordained (or holding) the priesthood are two different things.  All authority in the church is priesthood authority.  And women who have been endowed specifically have the priesthood in their homes.

[bluebell]

Just now, MacGyver said:

They function under the authority of the one who has been ordained and set apart and holds the keys over their calling. 

And the authority that women have to do so is priesthood authority.  

It might be good for you to review those conference talks.

[MacGyver]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have they ever done that before?  Stopped requiring the members to do something... so that the members had less responsibility and expectations?

Yes, I believe this has happened multiple times throughout church history. 

The question is whether or not "God [still] wanted them to do" what they were no longer being expected to do by the First Presidency and their local leaders.

 

[MacGyver]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And the authority that women have to do so is priesthood authority.  

It might be good for you to review those conference talks.

I'm familiar with the talks you are referring to. But do they actually have priesthood authority in a similar way as men do? I don't think any of the conference talks you are referring to say this. They are saying that they work under the authority of the leader who extended the calling or the assignment to them.

[Olmec Donald]

53 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Thanks for the clarification. I disagree that women have the priesthood without being ordained.

You're welcome, and no problem.

53 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

How would anyone know who has the priesthood and who doesn't without an ordination?

Literal descendants of Aaron have priesthood by birthright, but we wouldn't know that without Section 107.  Perhaps there is a revelation about women and the priesthood which we do not yet have.  "We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (The final verse of Section 132 promises future a revelation which to the best of my knowledge was never received; I mention this as an example of at least one area in which we do not have the complete picture yet.)

53 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

And if they presumably have the priesthood, why can't they perform the other ordinances outside the temple?

Good question!

In my opinion the reason is the same as why Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood for so long:  Something which Joseph Smith intended was misunderstood or changed or suppressed by his successors.  See History of the Church, volume 4, pages 602-607, which is Joseph's second address to the Female Relief Society, in which he "gave a lecture on the Priesthood showing how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings, and gifts of the Priesthood." (From Joseph's journal entry on page 602).

Which is more likely:  That we do not yet have the complete picture, or that HALF of the people performing PRIESTHOOD ORDINANCES in the temple are NOT priesthood holders?   

Edited January 20, 2022 by Olmec Donald