Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My ward has been doing the building cleaning this way for about 5 years now. My name has rotated through a number of times, each time with emails telling us to find a replacement if we can’t do it. I promptly ignore them each time. I have yet to hear about it from anyone.
But I do greatly dislike this method of trying to get people to clean the building. It’s a bit scummy to make assignments with no input and then expect people to find their own replacements for something they never agreed to in the first place.
To your other point, I feel the same way. The only contact I ever receive from the church wants something from me. My wife is fortunate to have a good ministering sister, who shows up each month, usually with a baked treat and a hand written note for her. But that’s it, every other contact from the church is asking for something.
Minyan Man wrote:
I too look forward to Elder Uchtdorf’s talks. Why is that?For me,
He seems to center on the life & mission of Jesus.
He seems to discuss the basics of the gospel. ie. Faith, repentance, et.
He includes stories that are relatable.
What can I say. I’m a simple man with simple needs.
I agree with all of that. For me, I think I enjoy his talks because they seem to have no agenda beyond giving a Christ-centered message. His talks are welcoming, simple and always point to the Lord. I have no way to articulate how his talks are different from the rest of the speakers, except that they feel like they are given in a different spirit.
And my predictions on catchphrases:
Covenant path: 24
Think celestial: 6
Temples announced: 15
What’s the over/under on “beloved prophet”?
Like DJ, I expect nothing revelatory. No “Thus sayeth the Lord” messages. My thoughts on GC are summed up by a meme I saw some time back with captions that read, “Come see a prophet, seer and revelator do none of those things.” As for my expectations of what we’ll see, Nelson’s address will probably be short and pre-recorded, if he even speaks at all. I’ve heard talk that his age is catching up with him and his health is going. Oaks’ talk will probably be in a “prime-time” slot, as the Church prepares everyone for him to be sitting in the big chair next.
For the rest of it, I’ve developed a game I call “Drink Celestial”. For every time someone says, “covenant path”, “think Celestial”, “beloved prophet”, etc. have a sip of coffee. And a bonus sip at the end of a talk if no scriptures were quoted. More seriously though, the only talks I’ve enjoyed and found any value in the past few years has been Uchtdorf’s talks. And in reality that’s probably the only talk I’ll actually pay attention to, if I even watch it this time around.
From that press release… Quote:“While this is not new, a number of recent productions depict lifestyles and practices blatantly inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. Others irresponsibly mischaracterize the safety and conduct of our volunteer missionaries. We understand the fascination some in the media have with the Church,
but regret that portrayals often rely on sensationalism and inaccuracies that do not fairly and fully reflect the lives of our Church members or the sacred beliefs that they hold dear.As much as I hate for it to sound like I’m defending the show, I do have to give the devil its due. The show starts off pointing out the more restrictive things that come along with growing up LDS (modesty, no piercings, no dating before 16 for example) and the typical beliefs of the faith, and makes clear that the people on the show (or at least the MomTok ones) have broken from that. Taylor, the main subject of the show, is shown to be something of a black sheep.
You also wouldn’t have to go far in Utah to find people who would fit right in on the show. As unflattering as it is to the Church and their fellow Utahans, those people do exist. So while it is accurate to say ‘Secret Lives’ isn’t an accurate reflection of the average LDS member, I’d say it does portray a subsection of Utah Mormon society pretty accurately.
I recently heard some scuttlebutt that Denver Snuffer’s group was in talks with the Community of Christ to hold a conference in the Kirtland temple during the eclipse in early April. Looking into it a little, I did see it mentioned that they did have to change venues and ended up having their conference in New York. I couldn’t find any mention from them for what the previous venue was supposed to be. Speculation I’ve seen is that the Church’s real reason for purchasing the temple was to prevent that conference from being held there. I have no way of knowing if that’s true at all, but it’s interesting enough that I figured I’d bring it up here.
Quote:13. Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
14. Do you honor your sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances?
One thing I’ve heard a few people mention is that you never actually covenant to wear the garment during the endowment. It can be assumed that wearing them is included, but legalistically, you never specifically covenant to wear them. I wonder if that is part of the reason for the change in the question(s).
Either way, I don’t care for the question, however it’s worded. It’s awkward having middle-aged men ask you and your wife about your underwear selection. Concern over whether someone is wearing them or not is something that would fit right in with the Pharisees of Jesus’ time.
I agree that asking about them is manipulative. And culturally, the focus on them gives people a way to judge whether you’re being a good Morm- I mean, member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
🙄 My best guess for the reason for the purchase is that they feel it solidifies the claim that we’re the true restoration church out of all the branches. For all of our temples, we didn’t have the first one. The only one that Joseph Smith was actually around for. nibbler wrote:
In the FAQ they said that the plan was to keep the Kirtland Temple open to the public, a tourist attraction. They also said they were going to build a real temple in Cleveland (about 30 minutes away).
Darn. I was looking forward to angels singing on the rooftop again.
Roy wrote:
I remember a conversation with a good natured female member where she said that she personally does not want the priesthood. I realized that saying this was congruent and reaffirming of her gender. I cannot say, “I personally do not want priesthood” without seeming like a lazy and defective shirker as though I had said, “I personally do not want to work outside the home.”My wife has told me in the past that she wouldn’t want the priesthood, specifically because she wouldn’t want the responsibilities associated with it. With as many things that get labeled “priesthood duties” in this church, I’m surprised I don’t hear that sentiment more often. The societal pressure for missions alone should be enough to scare a lot of women off of wanting the priesthood.
Roy wrote:I don’t think that there is the same level of acceptance for a woman that would desire to hold the priesthood today. Even if she was asking in patience and faith for what tasks she might do that do not require the priesthood (pass the sacrament or collect fast offerings? What about witnessing baptisms or being in the Sunday School presidency?) or asking how long she might need to wait (could she receive it in the millennium? how about the next life?) I think that she would be seen as a malcontent agitator and troublemaker.
I’d be surprised if we didn’t see women being allowed to do more and more little things around the church as time goes on. The justification used for women being allowed to witness baptisms and sealings now is that they’re doing it under someone else’s priesthood authority. Quite a bit else could be justified using that same loophole they’ve created.
Minyan Man wrote:
At what point is the price too high?
When you’ve got more than $100 billion, do prices even matter anymore?
Roy wrote:
Once in SS the teacher was a former mission president that I know fairly well and respect. His lesson included how local church leaders make mistakes and should be extended grace. He was sharing about how often the ward leader is doing his best and left to his own best judgment in running the ward. I shared how I had heard a funny couplet to go along with this, “some callings are inspiration and some callings are desperation.” I was gently chastised. According to this former MP, extending callings is the one exception to the “leaders doing their best” rule. Callings are ALWAYS inspired.
When I was teaching the 17 year-olds, one Sunday our discussion got into callings. I gently put forth the idea to them that callings are not always inspired. I told them that the bishop is human just like us. That he’s a good man who loves the ward, but he isn’t perfect and has a lot of responsibilities in his own life along with running the ward. And like any imperfect human, he can make mistakes too. I then went on to say that that is why it’s so important for us to support the bishop if we are able (wording it that way to hopefully not imply that we need to accept every calling, while still encouraging serving others).
I could tell by the look on their faces that they hadn’t been told anything like that before.
Minyan Man wrote:
But there are times when the calling is extended based on the family name & reputation. Or,the position they hold in the private sector. In our area of the kingdom, there haven’t been many “blue” collar members called
to leadership positions.
I do think someone’s reputation and what is commonly known about them goes into a lot of calling decisions. Every bishop and SP I’ve had were professionally successful and they all had day jobs that gave them some amount of leadership/management experience. Even the blue collar bishops I’ve had owned their own businesses.
The stake I grew up in was relatively isolated and not many people came or left. The same guys were constantly being called to leadership positions at the stake and ward levels. Most likely because they were known to be competent and preferable over someone who was unproven. Why call someone new when you’ve got a guy who’s been a bishop, SP counselor, and the YSA bishop who’s willing to fill the current leadership vacancy.
The Best Calling I’ve had.The best calling I’ve had was probably teaching Sunday school for the 17 years olds. They were old enough that I didn’t feel like I had to simplify what I taught and we had some great tangent discussions nearly every of Sunday. Eventually I just tossed the manual because we never went over anything I planned. When some of my kids got up in fast and testimony meeting and said how much they loved Sunday school, it was nice to feel like maybe I was doing something right.
The Worse Calling I’ve had.Being second counselor in my YSA elders quorum was a calling filled with frustrations, more so because of the EQ president and other counselor than the calling itself. They disregarded any input I and the secretary gave and did everything themselves. They then left and quit coming to church because they burned themselves out, leaving the two of us to do everything. That experience definitely reinforced the idea for me that not all callings are inspired.
The Calling I would like to have.The calling I’d like to have is the one I have right now, honestly. I’m a temple and family history consultant and the only thing I’ve had to do for it in the last three years is one after-church meeting. There are a couple genealogy buffs in the ward with the same calling that are more than happy to do all of the heavy lifting and so thankfully no one’s ever approached me to do anything. Which is perfect for me right now.
The Calling I would never accept.Like nibbler, anything in leadership. I do not have the time, energy or desire and I have no ambition to add any keys to my key chain.
Though in reality, I can’t think of many callings I would actually accept at this point. Most callings seem to be more about the continuing of church operations than they are about serving others. Sure, one could argue that the church’s operations serve people. But personally, I’d just as soon go spend a few hours volunteering at my local food bank if I wanted an opportunity for service.
So my thoughts echo nibbler’s. I have nothing against callings, especially for those who want to do them and find value in doing them. They’re just not for me right now, and probably won’t ever be.
When it comes to the black-eyes of racism and polygamy, I think the church has trapped itself on a crumbling cliff and it isn’t getting off without sacrificing something. The church can’t control the narrative anymore thanks to the internet (Though I’m convinced their history books like Saints is an attempt to mitigate that). The best way out would be an apology, but even that won’t get them out unscathed. Our claim to being the true Mormon church relies on Brigham Young, so they can’t throw completely BY under the bus for it. They could go halfway and just say he only got those specific things wrong, but that would make anyone who taught or defended those practices look foolish.
Part of the reason why Pres. Nelson is being chummy with the NAACP, I think, is that its his attempt to make up for mistakes of the past without losing face. Perhaps hoping that people will look at what we’re doing now and not at what we used to do.
If I had to make a prediction, I think the church is going to stay on the cliff until it collapses beneath them.
AmyJ wrote:Roy wrote:
P.S. I observe that church leaders are somewhat welcoming to those with doubts or questions as long as those people are willing to ask church leaders in faith and either accept the answers they receive or be willing to park those doubts on a shelf and possibly not get satisfactory answers until some future time. This is different than those that have different beliefs/ideas/or answers than what official church sources might say. It is this latter group that I believe church leaders continue to consciously drive underground or away from the church.
They are welcoming only as long as they feel that “you want to belong to the community” and/or “you might be rescue-able”.
This is what I’ve observed as well. There seems to be all the patience in the world for those who look like they are willing to go along with the church’s teachings, no matter what state they’re in. But if someone has the wrong questions or a different interpretation from what’s in the correlated curriculum, they don’t want that person around to spread their ideas, even if that person is trying to be “faithful”.
I think this will be a positive change. I agree with Roy that the majority of what’s put out in the church is intended to get people to believe in the organization more. Having something like this, something that teaches how to deal with life’s difficulties with a scriptural perspective, is a welcome thing.
