Conference tecrus::mormonism

>I have a question.  Does anyone know of any references where it says we should
>attend sunday school and priesthood/relief society?  I know we are commanded to
>attend sacrament meeting since we are commanded to take the sacrament regularly,
>but I can't find anything that says we have to attend the other two meetings of
>the block schedule. 

	What an interesting question! Although I have no official reference
    with me, I remember that one of the questions that is asked during
    temple recomend interview is something like "Do you attend All of
    your meetings?" I would assume they mean Sunday School and especially
    Priesthood/Relief Society. 
    
>Inquiring minds want to know.

	Me too. 

>Scott Johnson
>DEC
>Colorado Springs. Co.


    Frank Mueller
    DEC
    CSC/Atlanta
                

	From what I can remember, the "brethern" have indicated that
	priesthood is a required meeting.  This was before the consolidated
	meeting schedule.  Sunday school was never a mandatory meeting 
	before the consolidated meeting schedule, as far as I know. However,
	I do know that it has always been suggested that Sunday school was 
	a good place to be when it was in session.

	With the consolidated meeting schedule, the "brethern" indicated
	that Relief Society was a required meeting for the sisters, when
	it was previously not required.

	I can also remember when temple recommend interviews would look 
	at the sacrament/priesthood attendance for the brethern.

	Does it make any difference? I think that part of keeping the Sabbath
	Day Holy would be to attend all our offered meetings.

	Charles

    If you look at one of the pre-eminent beliefs of the LDS, namely that
    we all have free will/agency, no meeting is required.  Talk of
    mandatory/required meeting attendance recalls my days as a Catholic
    youth when I was taught that attendance at Sunday Mass was obligatory
    and not to do so meant a Mortal Sin, which sin would condemn you to
    hell fire.
    
    For me, Sunday worship services are wonderful opportunities to feast
    spiritually and refresh my spiritual domain, to learn, to reflect and
    to renew. AS for any hint of required, I believe that basically the
    idea is to partake of the sacrament, and once that is over, so is any
    idea of requirement.
    
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Paul

>    If you look at one of the pre-eminent beliefs of the LDS, namely that
>    we all have free will/agency, no meeting is required.  

	Paul
		Since we are going into thoughts, I would like to share
	some of mine as to why I disagree with you on the above point.  Free 
	agency should be to help us, not to allow us to break commandments.
	My understanding of doctrine in the D&C is such that I believe that I
	have my agency to obey or not obey the Lord.  In obtaining the
	priesthood and temple covenants, I have made sacred vows with the
	Lord.   As King Saul discovered, the Lord requires obedience, not
	sacrifice.  The Lord also requires "the heart and a willing mind" 
	where "the willing and obedient" will be rewarded. (D&C 64:34)

		In D&C 84:33-42 is the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood.
	The key stipulation, in my mind, is in verse 33 where He points out
	that after receiving the priesthood and "magnifying their calling"
	are we sanctified.  The duties of the president over the office of
	elders is to sit in council with them and to teach them according
	to the covenants. (D&C 107:89)  Where does this happen? In the
	"priesthood" part of the meeting schedule.  There is also scripture
	that would cover Sunday School, if you would like it.  In any case,
	the whole point is that we are to  "live by every word that proceedeth 
	forth from the mouth of God." (D&C 84:44)  How can we do that if we
	use "free agency" to go against that which God would like us to do.
	I have in a previous note quoted the scripture in which we are to
	follow the word of the "brethern" as if it were from God.  So there
	should be no qualms about "required" anything if it comes from God.
	If we do not do the *required* things, we can not enter into the temple.
	In a like manner, if we do not do the *required* things, we can not
	enter into the Kingdom of God.

	Charles

RE: Last few 

I would add another perspective here, and mention the small army of good
brothers and sisters who go to great lengths sometimes to prepare the
lessons or other content of those meetings. They do this work and sacrifice
their time because the Lord has asked them to do it *for us*. Moreover, the
blessings they receive in return come from being able to interact with
those who attend. Imagine how those who preside and/or teach would feel if
no one came to those meetings. 

Whether these meetings are required by the law or not, there is also a
moral obligation. It's like a banquet is prepared for us each Sunday by our
friends in the ward, for which the Lord Himself has issued an invitation.
It is really just a matter of our own free agency as to whether we should
show up? 

/kevin

    So far most of the replies in here deal with the good blessings of
    attending meetings.  I am well aware of all the blessings of attending
    meetings.  I am entering this in response to a question that I was
    asked.   I would like references.  
    
    Also, no one has addressed the 2nd question regarding what exactly a
    male member, not holding the priesthood, can do to serve in the church? 
    Can they teach a class?  The good sisters can, and they do not hold the
    priesthood.  I know they cannot do the things that require holding the
    priesthood, but what about doing things that do not require the
    priesthood.  Can they serve on a committee, give talks or prayers, etc?
    
    Thanks for all the previous replies and those to come.
    
    scott  
    

    I, too, am somewhat uncomfortable with the term "required meetings".
    For example, I serve as counselor to our bishop, who is a salesman for
    Sears. Every once in a while he is required to work on Sunday, though
    he would rather not. Another member of our ward is an air traffic
    controller, who is often required to work on Sundays. Sometimes my job
    at DEC requires me to work on Sundays, usually due to travel. Sometimes
    we are not able to attend meetings that we would otherwise like to
    attend. Such members of the church are no less worthy to attend the
    temple than those who never miss. 
    
    In my mind, the key here is whether we are willing to attend when we
    can for our own spiritual growth and for the service and support that
    we can lend to others. But, as with so many other things, it must be
    weighed with other important considerations as well. 
    
    I think this is one of the reasons that the scriptures don't say: "Thou
    shalt not miss priesthood meeting", or "Thou shalt attend sacrament
    meeting at least 85.6% of the time". The Lord leaves such
    determinations and choices up to us. He will judge us by the desires of
    our hearts, as well as by our deeds. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
              

    Re: Note 305.6 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON

>   Also, no one has addressed the 2nd question regarding what exactly a
>   male member, not holding the priesthood, can do to serve in the church? 
>   Can they teach a class?  The good sisters can, and they do not hold the
>   priesthood.  I know they cannot do the things that require holding the
>   priesthood, but what about doing things that do not require the
>   priesthood.  Can they serve on a committee, give talks or prayers, etc?
                           
    I believe that a male member in good standing who does not hold the
    priesthood may teach classes, participate in music, scouts, activities,
    speak in church meetings, and offer prayers. They may not be called to
    serve in a presidency or callings that specifically require the
    priesthood. 
    
    However, since all male members in good standing are eligible to
    receive the priesthood, any male who does not hold the priesthood may
    also have been restricted from participating in some or all of the
    above by the bishop, while they work on resolving some problems of
    worthiness.
    Rich
    

I recently heard a comment to the effect that non-members should not be used
as teachers of our youth.  I don't remember who made the comment (someone on
the ward or stake level), but the context was as a comment on church policy.
I'm sorry, Scott, that I don't have a better reference for this.

My Bishop considers my scout troop a non-church organization, and he will
allow non-members (such as a husband of a sister) to be Assistant Scoutmasters,
assuming after interviewing them he would consider them worthy of serving in
that position.  I know of one other Bishop who also does that.

Allen

I'm a rebel in a lot of ways.  I'm not too concerned which meetings are
"required" and which ones aren't.  I'm not too concerned what my Bishop
or Stake President might say about which meetings I should attend, because
they aren't responsible for my life--I am.  I do value their counsel to me,
because I consider them to be men of God, and I appreciate their spiritual
insight on matters that concern me, but their counsel has value because it
agrees with the Lord's will not because those men said it.

To me, the important thing is (a) what does the Lord want me to do, and 
(b) what have I committed to do.  Through prayer, reading the scriptures,
and listening to our Latter-day prophets, I believe the Lord wants me to
attend Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, and Priesthood, and I do attend
them.  I attend them because I believe the Lords wants me to, not because
they are required, and I do it by using my free agency to make the choice.

In addition, by accepting my current call as Scoutmaster, I have committed
to attend other meetings, such as Mutual, Roundtables, etc. and I do attend
them for that reason.

I also appreciate Kevin's comments about the effort that others have spent
in providing the meetings.  People work hard and sacrifice to provide the
meetings which provide an important influence in my life, and because I value
my relationship with those people, I want to support them by attending and
contributing to the meetings in a positive way.

Allen

    	>Re: Male members not holding the priesthood holding various
    	>callings.
    
    	Something that may not have been addressed is the male member who
    	had been excommunicated and rebaptized but not had his priesthood
    	restored. He has come back and should be allowed to participate in
    	any way possible except in callings where the priesthood is
        required of course.
    
    	As far as references for priesthood/relief society being required
    	you can pick up any conference issue in recent years to tell you.
    
    	Hope this feeble attempt to assist is beneficial Scott.
    
    	God bless,
    	
    	Dave Pyle

    reply .11
    
    You're right.  I'm asking this on behalf of a brother who was
    excommunicated and has been rebaptized but has not had his priesthood
    restored.
    
    He can be a great asset to the ward and quorum, and we we're wondering
    what he could and could not do as far as service in the church goes. 
    Right now he is a hometeacher and we we're wondering what else he could
    do.
    
    Thanks again for the replies.
    
    scott

>    You're right.  I'm asking this on behalf of a brother who was
>    excommunicated and has been rebaptized but has not had his priesthood
>    restored.
    
>    He can be a great asset to the ward and quorum, and we we're wondering
>    what he could and could not do as far as service in the church goes. 
>    Right now he is a hometeacher and we we're wondering what else he could
>    do.
    
     I'm not sure what the general handbook says, but the Melchizedek
     Priesthood handbook seems to suggest that home teachers should hold
     the priesthood.  Perhaps we have been mis-interpreting what has been 
     written, but when a previously-excommunicated member has been rebaptized, 
     he has not been able to serve as a home teacher until he holds the
     priesthood.

     Such people have served in a number of other positions -  Sunday School
     teacher, prmary teacher, Scouting program, Single Adults programs,
     music programs, public communications director, librarian, ward
     genealogy specialists/Family History Center workers, perhaps as a
     ward employment specialist.

	I am amazed at the furor the word *require* has caused.  Is it just
	human nature to balk at anything that is called a requirement?  Why
	does mankind seem to go out of their way to assert themselves by
	doing anything other than what is required of them?  And the fact
	that man has the agency to choose does not mean that man should
	choose that which is contrary to the requirements placed upon them.
	In referring to anything it should be realized and understood that
	everything must be tempered with intelligence, understanding, and the
	love for our fellow beings.

	As far as the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS goes, I
	consider the words *requirement* and *commandment* to be one and the
	same.  The problem comes in the interpretations people have with them.

	In Abraham 3 we find

	   25 "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all
	       things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;"

	   26 "And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon;
	       and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory
	       in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate;
	       and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added
	       upon their heads for ever and ever."

	Since we have already keep our first estate, we are now being tested
	to see how valiant we can be in keeping our second estate.  In D&C 76
	verses 50 through 70, He talks about those who will inherit the 
	Celestial Kingdom.  In these verses, we find the following :

	    52 "That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and
	        cleansed from all their sins, . . ."

	    53 "And who overcome by faith, . . ."

	    60 "And they shall overcome all things."

	The interesting thing about commandments (requirements) is that they
	are for our own benefit, good, and salvation.  Otherwise, we could not
	overcome all things.  By adhering to the letter of the law, we become
	accustomed to it, and we also receive the blessings of obedience.  In 
	doing so we court and obtain the Spirit of the Lord to accompany us in
	our activities.  All that the Lord gives us is to help keep us on the 
	straight and narrow path leading to eternal life.  Otherwise we will 
	drift and be tossed to and fro by the various winds of doctrine 
	provided by this world of sorrow and misery.  The only way to safely
	sail the seas and find the sunshine is to follow God and keep His
	commandments.  The only way to overcome the trials and tribulations of
	our earthly second estate is to love God.  If we love God, we will keep
	His commandments.

	Now, the way in which one is able to follow God is determined by the
	spirit in which one keeps God's commandments (requirements).  Those
	who rebel or are contrary do not have the correct spirit in keeping
	the commandments.  Our eternal salvation depends on how we keep the
	commandments.  The commandments and how they are kept are connected
	together.  It is not as involved as one would make it out to be.  It
	is an easy thing to do as soon as one is converted to God.  One has
	also got to be committed to that conversion.  As we must be as little
	children to inherit the kingdom of God, let us look at what we should
	be taught :

	Moses 6:57 "Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men,
		    everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit
		    the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell 
		    there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language 
		    of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of 
		    his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, 
		    a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.
		58 "Therefore I give unto a commandment, to teach these 
		    things freely unto your children, saying:"
		59 "That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which
	 	    fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into 
		    the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I 
		    have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so 
		    ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of 
		    water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even 
		    the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be 
		    sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal 
		    life in this world, and eternal life in the world to 
		    come, even immortal glory;"
		60 "For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit 
		    ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;"
		61 "Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of 
		    heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal
		    glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth
		    all things, which maketh alive all things; that which
		    knoweth all things, and hath all power according to
		    wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment."
		62 "And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of
		    salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only
		    Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time."

	By adhering to the commandments of God we obtain the blessings
	predicated by that obedience.  And the greatest blessing we can
	have fulfills the work and glory of God which is "to bring to 
	pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)
	May we all strive for these blessing with all our might and strength
	I pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

	Charles

	There are certain *guidelines* that are given to the bishop to
	follow in assigning jobs in the ward.  In all cases, the bishop
	is the ONLY one to determine worthiness of an individual.  Personally,
	I am surprised that a man without any priesthood is hometeaching.
	There are members in my quorum like that, but they do not hometeach
	or do anything that would require the priesthood.  I have, however,
	assigned them to special committees that require no priesthood so
	they can feel a part of the quorum.  There are also a combination of
	brethern that are under the dictates of court actions, and some can
	hometeach while others can not.

	However, it is the stewardship of the bishop to make that decision
	as directed by the spirit.  And you should go ask him - not members 
	in this conference.

    
    All this is immaterial to me. Everything you will ever do in life is
    an individual decision! Any particular meeting or activity may or may
    not have value to me. Anything I do in life may or may not have value
    to me. I am the one to decide what does or doesnt. I cannot live my
    childrens lives for them. If they ask my advice,I will give them what
    wisdom I have,THAT WORKS FOR ME. They must decide whether it works for
    them. I dont want them to depend on me for everything,I want them to
    grow into their own person,whatever that may be. I dont command them,I
    love them.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

You've brought up an important point, Charles.  If I understand what we're
all saying, I think we are using the word "required" in slightly different
ways.

You've equated the word "require" with the word "commandment", and I think
all of us want to obey God and attend the meetings which He has commanded
us to attend; this was the major point of my reply: I want to do what God
wants me to do.

A slightly different use of the word "require" is in the context of our
being forced to attend, with penalties of some kind being given for
disobedience.  This is the meaning to "require" that I've been thinking of,
not your meaning of "commandment".  If the Church says that such-and-such a
meeting is required and I don't attend it, I'm not a faithful member as far
as the earthly organization is concerned.  In this case, the people referred
to by Rich are in deep trouble, and I am too since I missed my meetings one
Sunday in January because I was attending a Winter survival workshop.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself very well, and I'm probably the only
one who thinks there is a subtle difference in the word "require"

Allen

	Allen,

	Somehow I think that maybe some people do not think I allow for
	the contingencies of life.  I support the concept whole heartedly
	that there are circumstances in which a person would not be able
	to attend a particular meeting.  But not just because they don't
	want to at that particular moment.

	Even by equating the word "require" with the word "commandment", 
	there are still penalties of some kind being given for disobedience.
	But these are more spiritual now, and eternal latter on.  However,
	disobedience is a willful act; not something that we do not totally
	have control over.

	As to being a faithful member as far as the earthly organization is 
	concerned, missing a meeting here or there will not detract from
	that.

	We must always remember that God, or His servants, will not DEMAND 
	we meet ANY requirement He has established.  God will force no person 
	to heaven.  We have to go there of our own free will.

	Charles

    
    
    Hi!
    
    Just wanted do drop a line on this subject. Semantics seem to play such
    a large part of our daily live in our conversations with others.
    A lot of good valid points have been brought up here, and I don't feel
    there's a right or wrong here. 
    
    We all learn things line upon line, precept upon precept. The
    obligations of a neophyte member, cannot be compared with one who has
    been in the gospel many years. What might be right for one to expect
    is not necessary applicable at that point in time for another. The
    issue of free agency is involved here where we are not compelled in 
    things, only given the glorious example of the Saviour, and
    instructions in the form of revelation and counsel by our leaders.
    True, for blessings to be gained, there is a prescribed mode of 
    conduct, but this happens only voluntary and through this comes
    faith and spiritual growth. Need we not forget that the adversary
    sought to deprive man of his free agency in the pre-existance and 
    his plan was rejected. It is through Christ and his plan that we are
    here in this estate, with this free agency, obeying the Lord's command-
    ments out of our own decisions, not those of others. Once we make those
    decisions, whatever they might be, then we exercise that agency, and
    are subject to the blessings or lack of, depending on our obedience to
    these decisions, those being in obeying the Lord's commandments. 
    
    Kevin
    
     

	RE: <<< Note 306.9 by DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE >>>

	Michael,
			Yes, you are right.  You have the choice to make.
	No one will take that away from you, unless you give it up.
	However, I would like to point out that as a parent we are commanded 
	to teach our children - not wait for them to come and ask us.  As 
	the patriarch our homes, we have certain obligations and duties that 
	God has outlined.  We are to teach our children - and then give them 
	their free agency to choose.  God loves us, and because He does He 
	gives us those commandments which will help us on our journey here.
	I feel that a parent that does not direct their children does not 
	really love them very much.  Else that parent would be concerned by 
	what the child does.

	Charles

    
    CHARLES,
    
          It is not by commandments that I teach my children. I teach by
    example and gentle guidance until they reach the age where they make
    more of the decisions for themselves,and,I leave the door open for them
    to ask me questions. I make myself available. I share my time with them
    if they accept it. I donot need to be commanded to do anything. My
    father and mother were not people who went to church. I have seen them
    in church only a couple of times in my early childhood. My father was a
    man who taught by his life,how he lived. He was always helping people
    and was not a rich man as far as money,but,he was a good example of an
    honest,hardworking,loving spirit. I learned from him,and,decided very
    young what my morals would be. I had another brother who went against
    his example,by choice. I have served in the church,and,learned from it.
    I still believe in many of the standards the church sets. I also love
    my children enough to let them fail. I want them to learn that they are
    not the only people who they need to be concerned about.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

The 1989 General Handbook says that local leaders (presumably meaning the 
bishop plus any other ward leader) may call nonmembers to the positions of 
organist and chorister, but not call them to teaching and administrative 
positions.

As for unordained male members, I couldn't find anything in the General 
Handbook, but the Melchizedek Priesthood handbook has a whole page of 
information on "Prospective Elders."

According to the MP handbook, Prospective Elders:

- may not serve as quorum leaders or secretaries.

- may serve as assistant secretaries or committee member.

- may serve as home teachers *if* they hold the Aaronic priesthood.

/kevin

    Ken,
    
    Hello from Mass.  I was interested in your statement that the Church is
    about to make an announcement that would free up more time.  Do you
    have any more info on what it might be?  Even a good rumor would do.
    
    Paul

    	
    	Hi Paul, my Bishop received a schedule from our Stake President
    that will elimanate all meetings for an entire week possibly two each 
    month. This is to encourage families to do even more things together.
    	I will hear more about it this Sunday. 
    
    	Ken

================================================================================
Note 368.3                 Church members and Politics                    3 of 5
WCSM::POTTER                                         19 lines  14-NOV-1990 16:23
                        -< Church members and Politics >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Note: portions of the reply not pertaining to a possible change in
           Church policy were removed.  Note 368.3 still has the full
           reply.  Moderator]

    I understand the Church will make an announcement soon to which
    will free up more of our time. 

    Ken

    	Our Stake Presidency has asked our Bishops to take one week a
    quarter and set it aside for a "family week" No meetings except for
    the Sunday block meetings are to take place. No fire sides, no young
    women, young men, no bishop interviews, ect for the entire week. This
    is a decision our stake presidency has made. Other stakes in this area 
    are cutting deeper and setting aside one week a month for the "family
    week" instead of one week a quarter. I don't know where this is coming
    from. It does not appear to be Church wide. It is creating quite a
    commotion in our stake anyway.

    Ken

    Thanks for the information.  In an article in the Ensign last Spring by
    Boyd Packer, he stated that the Church has been saying that it was time
    to cut back on programs because they were placing a burden of time and
    money on the the membership.  He also stated that the GA's have been
    saying this since 1975 with no success.   So that result prompted the
    revisions in the budgeting process.  The net effect is that programs
    were drastically non-funded or underfunded to cut back.  However, we
    seem to have back filled the time made free with broadcasts, firesides
    or other "special conferences".  I would like to see some kind of
    revision of the Sunday Schedule.  I do not have any ideas on how to do
    it, but "sense" that the 3 hour block has outlived its need.
    
    Why the need for this freeing up of time?  A typical week in the life
    of a Mormon:
    
    Sunday	3 hours in Church, add Planning Meetings (PEC, Ward
    		Council), Correlations Meetings, Prayer Meetings,
    		Presidency Meetings, In SErvice meetings, and PPI Meetings
    
    Sunday Eve	Firesides, Broadcasts
    
    Monday	Family Home Eve (which we moved to Sunday afternoon to
    		free up kids for town/school activities)
    
    Tuesday	Seminary Meeting (home study), Mutual
    
    Wednesday	Stake Meetings (High Council, Bishops Council, Stake
    		Auxiliary Meetings
    		
    		Some areas hold Mutual on this night
    
    Thursday	FREE NIGHT
    
    Friday	Date Night
    
    Saturday	Special Work Assignments or SErvice Projects, Youth 
    		Activities, Special Conferences and Meetings.
    
    Sunday	A new week and it begins again.
    
    Now add to this schedule all of your town and school stuff your kids
    are involved in (and multiply it by the number of kids you have) and
    you get a picture of "being weary from well doing" that most Mormons
    are afflicted with.
    
    I just remembered the stuff I forgot; Splits with the missionaries,
    and cottage meetings with the missionaries; plus time spent doing
    Genealogy.
    
    Enough, enough!  I can hear you screaming over the tube.  So what is
    the solution.  We choose what to go to and what not to go to and have
    long since put away all the guilt one can heap on themselves by
    thinking "they are not supporting the Church if they do not attend
    everything that is put on by the Church.
    
    Oh well, just some thoughts.  It's Tuesday and I have to finish
    preparations for the weekly Home Study Seminary Class I teach and then
    end that class early so I can rush to the high school for a meeting on
    how to get financial aid for my son going off to college next year.  
    
    Paul

    Oh, goody, goody, goody, goody, goody, goody, goody, goody, goody!
    
    Steve

Regardless of whether this rumor is true or not, IMHO the closer to the
Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the more responsibility we will have to take
care of ourselves and the less responsibility the Church will have.

Historically, the Church has assumed much of the responsibility of parenthood,
but little by little it is giving that responsibility back to us.  A change
in meeting schedule like this would put even more responsibility upon us to
teach our families the Gospel and not rely on the organizations of the Church
to do it for us.  Again IMHO, I believe the time will come that due to
wickedness, we won't be able to meet together as a Church organization and
we will *really* have to be close together as a family to survive.

Anyone have any of their humble opinions about this they would like to share?

Allen

It's been over a year and nothing has happened in my Stake in
New England.  Anyone have recent rumors about this they'd
like to spread....

Allen

    While in the HIgh Council, I sparked a discussion about meeting
    changes, mentioning that some western wards had "meeting-less" weeks. 
    We had about 3 minute discussion, got a cool reception, and they moved
    onto the next agenda item.
    
    Paul

    Yup.  I was at that same meeting.  There is, however, concern about how
    the Stake is addressing the needs of members.  A survey is in progress
    to get some feedback from members that will be used to better direct
    the limited resources available.  I think that we as a Church have
    become too accustomed to making the Church part of our social lives.
    That was important when LDS folks were all but kicked out of societies. 
    But, that is no longer the case.  LDS are welcome in communities and
    now are often torn between activity in the Church and activity in the
    community.  Further, some feel that Church resources are being wasted
    on "community" activities when they would be better spent on directly 
    religious activities.  Where you draw the line is a non-trivial task.
    
    So, even though the "meeting-less" suggestion was pretty much shot
    down, the discussions that have followed have resulted in serious
    actions to gather data that will be used to make changes.  I'm involved
    with that process.  It's been delayed by ward conferences over the past
    few months, but is coming back up to speed now.
    
    Steve

    <community.  Further, some feel that Church resources are being wasted
    <on "community" activities when they would be better spent on directly 
    <religious activities.  Where you draw the line is a non-trivial task.
    
    How are the church resources being wasted when we get involved in
    community activities?  In our area, we have received direction to
    become more involved with other churches.  Just recently, our bishop
    met with a catholic leader in a parish.  They both came away from that
    feeling like good things were accomplished.  In fact, the catholic
    person told about how when he was up in Denver and working a parish
    that he borrowed the Family Home Evening program from the church and
    tried to get it going in his congregation.  In one instance it took off
    and worked fine and in another it did not.
    
    Another indicator that the church is leaning in this direction is with
    the VISN program and the services we are offering for other
    denominations.
    
    scott
    
    

    Sorry.  I didn't make myself clear.  What I meant by Church resources 
    wasted on "community" activities was areas where communities already
    provide ample opportunity and the Church is competing with these.  
    
    For example, the Singles program has, according to some, had the purpose 
    of providing a place for single people to meet and data.  But, some have
    indicated that although singles do want to get together every once in a
    while, there are ample wholesome opportunities within the community for 
    singles to get out and date.  We've had several singles tell us that
    they would rather the Church focus more on their spiritual needs and
    less on their dating needs.
    
    Another is that Wards will put on talent shows and such when the community 
    is also providing wholesome opportunities to participate.  They end up 
    competing.  For example, my wife plays in a local orchestra.  Last Christmas, 
    she and several others in this orchestra were doing Christmas programs for 
    both communities and the Church.  We like Christmas and she was happy to 
    participate, but we were both pretty glad when the programs were all over.  
    
    Another is that we have several kids who find that athletic programs often 
    collide.  Should I play for the Church team or the school varsity?
    
    Another is the time that is committed to Relief Society.  There are
    many women who are active not only with Relief Society but also with 
    community organizations that share many of the same goals for community 
    service.  They often find their time heavily split in service projects for 
    both.  It winds up adding stress to the family and burns people out.
    
    There's more.  But, that's basically the point I'm trying to make. 
    I think the trend is becoming more along the lines of having the Church
    provide those services which are unique to it.  As a result we should
    all have a little more time and allow the Church to run more
    efficiently doing what it does best - like missionary work!  :)
    
    Steve