[Holy Cow]

Wow!! Thanks for the update. This is great news! Definitely a big step in the right direction. I hope this is moving things closer to extending the priesthood to any member that desires to hold it.

[Holy Cow]

DarkJedi wrote:

So, while I do believe the majority will actually do the 15 minute thing, it now occurs to me that it is possible some will do it to be done and will get nothing out of it.

This may make some people’s blood boil, but to be honest, I’m one of the click-through people. As soon as I heard about this training, I went to the website, opened the training, and clicked through it in about 3 minutes. I’m the assistant scoutmaster in our ward, so I’ve taken the Boy Scout youth training multiple times. The training on the scout website does not allow you to click-through. So, that’s one way the scout’s training is better than the church’s training. I’m guessing that in the near future, the church will realize this and disable the ability to click-through the training without watching the whole thing.

Honestly, I believe the two-deep leadership is the most important thing we, as a church, should focus on. Putting out a quick training is nice, but it’s not going to do anything to keep an abusive person from continuing to abuse. Nor will it keep a predator from targeting people. Even background checks wouldn’t completely eliminate the potential for abuse. A background check would reveal what a person has done in the past, which would be very helpful; however, it can’t predict what a person will do in the future. Just because a person has a clean past, that doesn’t mean they won’t prey on someone, given the opportunity. I believe two-deep leadership is the most effective deterrent to a predator. While this video training is a good start, it’s the overly-trusting culture (to the point of being naive) that we need to work on. Most people know about the two-deep leadership rules, but many people disregard the rule because they trust the other adults in the ward, or simply out of convenience.

[Holy Cow]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I liked the idea of the 3 pillars to remaining active in the church so much that I devised a poll for readers. I’m a little surprised by some of the results.

https://wheatandtares.org/2019/08/14/trust-belonging-and-meaning-polls-follow-up-discussion-of-ostlers-bridges/

Hop over and take the poll and see what you think.

These poll results are very interesting! I’ve never really spent time on Wheat & Tares. What is the general vibe? How would you describe the general audience on that site? Is it mostly TBM? Mostly folks who have gone through some type of FC, like here? Lots of ex-Mo folks? I think knowing a little more about the audience would give the poll results a little more context.

[Holy Cow]

Cadence wrote:

So how does that fit in with a loving god? Is he helpless to intervene? Does he not care to intervene? Or maybe he is off someplace else at the moment on a different project.

Personally, I believe God does very little (or nothing) to intervene in our lives. When Adam and Eve (whether literally or figuratively) were cast out of God’s presence, and into the lone and dreary world, they were sent out to experience life in their own. I compare it to sending my kids off to college. As long as they’re living at home, I can create a safe, loving, nurturing environment where they have everything they need and are protected from the outside world (generally). But, when they leave for college, I’ll be sending them out into an imperfect world where they will experience all kinds of positive and negative influences. I believe that almost everything we experience is just life. I don’t believe God is doing anything that will cause suffering, nor avoid suffering. On the flip-side, I also don’t believe God is doing anything that will bring us joy/blessings/happiness. I believe 99.9% of what we experience is simply a result of 1.) our choices, 2.) the impact of other people’s choices, 3.) coincidence, 4.) nature.

When my kids leave home, I’ll have much less influence over what happens in their lives. That doesn’t mean I love them any less. The fact that I’m not intervening to keep them from experiencing any suffering does not mean I don’t care. It means that I’m learning to let go and allow them to start experiencing life. I imagine that will be a hard thing to do. And I imagine it must be hard for God to watch the suffering we all go through.

[Holy Cow]

Heavy_Laden wrote:

I have never heard of a LDS person having records sent to a Ward of their choosing, making them available for callings and assignments. I actually heard it would require First Presidency approval?

My family and I had our records moved to a different ward, and it was a fairly simple process. We were living in a ward that we really loved, and then the ward boundaries changed and we were assigned to a different ward. We gave it a year, and still didn’t feel at home there. I just started attending our previous ward. Eventually, my wife started joining me. When our assigned bishop asked us about it, I just told him that I feel at home in that ward. I told him I was just going to attend that ward going forward. He explained that they wouldn’t be able to let me hold a calling in that ward, since I wasn’t officially a member of the ward, and I told him that was fine and just smiled. He asked me if he’d like me to talk to the other bishop and the SP to have our records moved back to the other ward, and I told him that would be great. A week later, he told me that the SP, the other bishop, and himself had all discussed it and supported the move, and our records were moved. It never went higher than the SP that I know of.

[Holy Cow]

This has been an interesting topic to me. I’ve never considered RS or EQ groups being responsible for dressing a deceased member. Seems like a lot to ask! When my wife’s mother passed, my wife and her sisters dressed her. However, it was such a negative experience for her, that she said she regretted being involved, and will never do it again. I can see how this would be a job that a lot of people would want to avoid. Not only would I not want ward members handling my body, I would also not want to handle a deceased members body (ward member, family member, or otherwise). Personally, I don’t want a typically LDS funeral, which is one of many reasons that I’ve requested cremation. Just out of curiosity, are most people here planning to be buried in temple clothes?

[Holy Cow]

Roy wrote:

FYI, the new program has a name! “Children and Youth”

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900080061/church-replacement-for-boy-scouts-personal-progress-lds-mormon.html

Wow, what a creative and inspiring title for the new program… 🙄

Thanks for sharing that link. Reading through this information, it makes it sounds like they’re going to turn it into the kind of program that I was worried about:

Quote:

The goal of the new initiative is to deepen conversion through gospel learning, personal development and service and activities. It is based on the church’s renewed emphasis on home-centered, church-supported learning, which has led to major changes, including a new churchwide curriculum for Sunday School and other classes and more family gospel study in place of one hour of Sunday meetings.

It sounds like it’s going to suck the fun out of the youth programs by putting even more focus on gospel study. Somebody mentioned MTC-Lite, and it sounds like that’s pretty accurate.

Quote:

One known goal of the initiative is to equalize experiences for girls and boys. Another is to equalize them for youth and children in North America and around the world.

This is another point I’m not thrilled about. I’m all for equalizing the funding of the boys and girls programs. But, when it comes to equalizing the activities for youth and children, I’m not a fan. It sounds like they’re just going to be putting more of a gospel-focus on things, and they’re going to extend that to primary age children too. Probably one reason they’ll start doing annual bishop interviews for kids that are 8 and older. I thought one of the greatest pros of the scouting program was that it was easy to include boys who had no interest in church. About 50% of the boys in our troop are boys who never show up to church and have no interest in missions/seminary/church/priesthood. But, those boys love being a part of scouting. A program that is gospel-focused as it’s main goal is going to chase those types of youth away.

When I click on the links in this article, it says I don’t have access. Is anybody able to access the links?

[Holy Cow]

Minyan Man wrote:

Does this mean the Eagle Scouts program is over too?

Yup. No more Eagle Scouts. Our ward has had a slew of boys (including my son) finishing their Eagle scout projects this summer, so they can get it before school starts back up.

I have mixed feelings about the church parting ways with scouting. On one hand, I believe the BSA is a total racket and over charged for almost everything. On the other hand, I think it’s a good program that teaches young men a lot of great lessons, especially when it’s implemented right with good leaders. Also, I like that the Eagle Scout award is widely known. Whatever the church replaces scouting with will be completely unknown outside of the church and won’t mean anything to non-LDS folks. I encouraged my son to get his Eagle scout award, but I wouldn’t push him to complete an LDS-focused program. I guess this is why I’m also not as familiar with these other programs and how much importance they play in a typical TBM household.

[Holy Cow]

felixfabulous wrote:

In a previous world, which Christian church was true and had God’s authority was a hot topic and we made our case as well as anyone. Set aside the historical problems with many of these claims that are presented with the internet age, now, a lot of people don’t really care about which church is true and has the authority. They are wondering why they even need religion. The questions our missionaries should be answering are “would my life be better with religion?” and “how can I find meaning and community by participating in the Church?”

I would like to see us shift our resources toward improving the Sunday worship experience and having more fellowshipping activities.

Amen to that! The shift toward more instruction time has not felt like a constructive change to me. I skip SS & EQ more now than I ever did when we had the three-hour block. Mostly, because the class feels so long that it gets to the point that we’re just trying to fill the time. I would get more out of a quality 20-minute lesson than a long, rambling 50-minute lesson. I love that we cut an hour out of the block, but making the 2nd hour instruction time longer has led me to skip the 2nd hour more often than not. At least I was able to go to the Gospel Essentials class in the past, where there weren’t as many of the us vs. them lessons. Without the option of a more basic SS class, I think we’ve taken away some of the “visitors welcome” mentality. At least this year, we’re talking about the New Testament. What will a visitor’s first experience be like in the years when we’re talking about BofM or D&C? Many of the changes being made feel like a step in the right direction, while others feel like re-entrenchment. Not necessarily one step forward and two steps back; but maybe one step forward and 1/2 step back.

[Holy Cow]

Our ward used to meet in a very small building, which we didn’t share with any other wards. As a result, the cleaning assignment went pretty quick and nobody seemed to mind it too much. It would take three families about 45 minutes to clean the whole building. At the beginning of the year, our ward was reassigned to meet in the stake center. So, we have a much bigger building shared with multiple wards, plus stake activities. We would have five families cleaning on Saturday mornings, and it would take about two hours. Participation quickly started to drop. The wards met to discuss how to improve this. It was decided that the ward responsible for cleaning that week would meet to clean the building on Tuesday night, before any ward/stake activities. That way, the building is already much cleaner to start with and the cleaning goes much faster. Every group that meets in the building during the week is expected to completely clean up after themselves (kitchen, nursery, vacuuming, sweeping, chair set up, etc.) So, the building is now being cleaned up by the YM/YW after they use the building, by seminary students after they finish class, and by anybody else using the building for weddings, etc. We also have a retired guy called as the facility supervisor. It’s his job to take a walk through the building after each activity and call the YM/YW leaders, seminary teachers, or families who reserved the building, to tell them if something wasn’t cleaned up, and it’s their responsibility to come back to the building to clean up what was missed. It didn’t take long before the adults started doing a more thorough sweep of the building to make sure it was completely cleaned before they left. I’ve also seen youth being more careful with the messes they make, knowing that they’re the ones who will have to clean up after themselves.

Now, the Tuesday night cleaning only takes about 1/2 hour, which is much more palatable. I hate cleaning the building, but I’m willing to put in 1/2 hour every few months when our family’s turn comes up.

[Holy Cow]

I think I’d agree with Dande48. When somebody has a definition in their head, it’s going to be an uphill battle trying to get them to change their perspective; and it may not be worth the effort. The best you can do is to let him know what YOUR take is on modesty and leave it at that.

I see the church’s definition of modesty (for both men and women) as wearing clothing that would keep garments covered completely (without rolling up sleeves or legs). Young men and women are expected to wear clothing that cover the same areas to ‘prepare them’ for wearing garments.

Personally, I think it’s more important to teach my kids to wear what’s important for the situation. My employer’s dress code is “Dress For Your Day.” Meaning, if you have an appointment scheduled with a client, or you have an important meeting or presentation, you’re expected to dress professionally. If you have nothing scheduled for your day, and you’ll be spending your whole day working at your desk, then you can wear jeans and tennis shoes. I like this approach, and I wish this was more of the approach we took at church. I don’t see anything wrong with wearing tank tops out to the park on a hot day, or a bikini to the beach. Those are appropriate for the setting. But, I think in our church it comes down to covering the garments, and not allowing too much leeway for finding reasons not to wear garments.

[Holy Cow]

Rumin8 wrote:

What I do begrudge from our wealthy church:

1) the forced service of chapel cleaning and exterior maintenance

2) forced service of temple cleaning and exterior maintenance

3) take my tithing dollars or invest aggressively but not both

4) prosperity gospel: as I look at the history of my local leaders, most, of not all, have achieved some greater than average level of success and prosperity. So the lesson here is obedience = prosperity = leadership opportunities

I would agree with these, as well. I’ll never forget an experience from when my wife and I were first starting out. We had a young family and were really struggling financially. During our annual tithing settlement, our bishop asked how we were doing, and we explained how tight things were for us. We were still paying our tithing and fast offerings, and we weren’t asking for any financial help from the ward. We were just being honest that we were barely getting by. Most of our meals were rice, PBJ sandwiches, ramen noodles, or spaghetti. But we were surviving. The bishop barely acknowledged what we said, and immediately ended the meeting by asking us if we would donate to the Boy Scouts. He said, “We’re asking most people to donate $100, but even half of that would be helpful.” I just sat there for a moment with a shocked look on my face (probably looking very much like my avatar picture)!

That experience helped me shape how I feel about giving to the church now. I still give tithing, or at least I consider it to be tithing. I just don’t give it to the church. I donate to charities that I feel truly need it and will use it for a good cause. I also donate to fast offerings, because I like that the money helps people locally. The church wouldn’t consider me as a tithe payer, but I do. I just give my money to organizations who will use it in a way that I would prefer to see it used. I have no desire to help build temples all over the world or add to the churches full coffers.

I would prefer to see the church hire custodians to have our buildings cleaned by professionals. If the church wants to provide opportunities for members to serve, they could set up more soup kitchens and donation facilities where members could serve on a regular basis. That type of service is much more rewarding than vacuuming the church hallways and scrubbing toilets. 🙄

[Holy Cow]

SD, great topic!

I agree with your thoughts that forgiveness and trust are very different and separate things.

As far as trusting someone that you can’t forgive, I would relay a personal experience. Almost 20 years ago, a girl I was dating was hit and killed by a drunk driver in a parking lot. I watched her die, while the drunk driver stood behind me saying that she should have been watching where she was going. For 20 years, I have felt an intense and burning hatred for this man, and even after talking through this experience with a therapist, I have not been able to come anywhere near forgiving him. If someone asked me if I trusted him, I would find it a strange question, because trust has nothing to do with it. I have no idea where the guy is now, or what has happened in his life since then. Perhaps he has served his time and has been completely sober ever since. Perhaps he served his time and went straight to the bar. I don’t know and I don’t care. But, let’s say this man was hired by my company and I had to work with him. If I found that he was a hard worker and could be relied on, then, yes, I would trust him in a professional capacity as a coworker. But, it would take a lot more than that before I could forgive him. So, yes, I do think it would be possible to trust someone without forgiving them; at least to a certain degree.

On the opposite spectrum, I’ll relay an experience in VERY general terms. Someone very close to me did something that caused our relationship a huge amount of pain, and nearly ended our relationship. We were able to work through it over time, and I was able to forgive and begin to trust that person again. About 2-3 years later, the person betrayed trust again by doing the same thing that hurt the relationship the first time, only this time it was even more egregious. Forgiveness was much more difficult the second time, but I was able to forgive for the sake of the relationship. However, trust is still strained, even years later. I would say trust has been built to about 80% of what it used to be, but I don’t know if it will ever be more than that. There may always be that nagging question about whether or not the person would repeat the offense again if they had the opportunity.

In short, I agree with your assessment that trust and forgiveness are two very different things. Oftentimes, they go along with each other, but, in my opinion, in certain situations you can have one without the other.

[Holy Cow]

I haven’t had a recommend in many years, and don’t see that changing anytime in the foreseeable future. I have a niece getting married in the temple soon, and I’m more than happy to sit in the foyer and wait. My wife asked if I’d rather stay home and then show up to the reception later. But, I want to be there to support her, even though I can’t go inside, and it doesn’t bother me at all to not be in the room during the actual ceremony. I also don’t feel like I need to hide that I can’t go inside.

For me, I don’t see things changing for two reasons: 1.) The ordinances make me feel uncomfortable, and I don’t agree with the LDS temple doctrines, 2.) I wouldn’t be able to answer the recommend questions honestly enough to even get a recommend.

My issues with the ordinances and temple doctrines would fit better in a separate post. But, the specific recommend questions that keep me away would be: I don’t have a testimony of the restoration, because I don’t believe a restoration was needed in the first place; I sustain the President and 12 as leaders of the church, but not as prophets, seers, etc.; I pay tithing, but in my own way (I divide my 10% between fast offerings and two other non-LDS charities); I do not wear garments and have no plans to put them back on.

I don’t foresee my son wanting to be married in the temple, but I’m not sure about my daughter. But, if the day comes that she wants to be married in the temple, that is the only thing I could imagine that would really make me consider going to great lengths to go back.

[Holy Cow]

dande48 wrote:

Quite literally, if we took away the Book of Mormon, nothing doctrinal in the Church would change. Instead I feel it is solely used as a “sign” the Church is true, but that’s where the value ends. Other than that, is it anything more than an “inspiring story”? Does it serve any other purpose?

The only doctrines that I can think of that are unique to the Book of Mormon (correct me if I’m wrong):

Children/Infants do not need baptism (Moroni

Gave specific wording for the sacrament prayers

Personally, I think the Book of Mormon doesn’t add a lot of doctrinal differences from the Bible, but was more of an answer to many of the 19th century doctrinal arguments that were floating around at the time. It’s more of a “here’s where we stand on these biblical debate issues” in story form. Just my opinion.

[Author]

Posts