Page 1 of 3

Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 24 May 2017, 10:20
by SamBee
It's something of a monster, but Verschlimmbesserung is one of those concepts that German has a word for and English doesn't.

It means to make something worse by improving (or "updating") it. Think Windows updates, Hotmail etc where the new features actually destroy a level of practicality.

In the case of the COJCOLDS, one can see plenty of Verschlimmbesserung. An obvious example are all the various versions of FamilySearch... but this is not just a computing concept. Getting rid of paid cleaners in our chapels is Verschlimmbesserung in my view.

Can you think of other examples?

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 24 May 2017, 10:58
by SilentDawning
The November policy.

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 24 May 2017, 10:59
by SilentDawning
Kind of like -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it, because you end up taking something that already works and potentially ruining it even more.

For me the one year waiting period policy is like that.

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 24 May 2017, 15:00
by SamBee
SilentDawning wrote:
24 May 2017, 10:58
The November policy.
Definitely - and I believe no one has benefited including its supporters.

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 24 May 2017, 15:20
by ydeve
SamBee wrote:
24 May 2017, 15:00
Definitely - and I believe no one has benefited including its supporters.
You could argue that fence sitters who were miserable in the church benefited when their shelves broke, but yeah, the PoX was a bad move.

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 24 May 2017, 17:53
by nibbler
Gesundheit.

There's an element of people responding to change differently. Like facebook rolls out a new change, some people hate it and want things to go back to the way it used to be while other people love it. So when we talk about verschlimmbesserung in the church I think we mean personal verschlimmbesserungs, or was the intention to think of verschlimmbesserungs that are nearly universal among all members?

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 25 May 2017, 05:48
by SamBee
November Policy definitely counts as it did not have the desired effect, unintended consequences and they had to do a U-turn. And I say that from the POV of its supporters
(I'm not one.)

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 25 May 2017, 09:29
by SilentDawning
SamBee wrote:
25 May 2017, 05:48
November Policy definitely counts as it did not have the desired effect, unintended consequences and they had to do a U-turn. And I say that from the POV of its supporters
(I'm not one.)
Did they do a u-turn? I have heard of no such u-turns. Usually church-related u-turns are like trying to turn a massive ocean liner. Happens really slow!!

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 26 May 2017, 05:45
by SamBee
SilentDawning wrote:
25 May 2017, 09:29
SamBee wrote:
25 May 2017, 05:48
November Policy definitely counts as it did not have the desired effect, unintended consequences and they had to do a U-turn. And I say that from the POV of its supporters
(I'm not one.)
Did they do a u-turn? I have heard of no such u-turns. Usually church-related u-turns are like trying to turn a massive ocean liner. Happens really slow!!
Yes, they did. They had to issue a second statement to try and undo some of the unintended consequences, namely how the policy affected active children and heterosexual children of LGBT.

Re: Verschlimmbesserung

Posted: 26 May 2017, 08:13
by dande48
SamBee wrote:
26 May 2017, 05:45
Yes, they did. They had to issue a second statement to try and undo some of the unintended consequences, namely how the policy affected active children and heterosexual children of LGBT.
That's hardly a u-turn. If anything, it was merely an apology/explanation for lack of tact. Although, in the end maybe that WAS the biggest issue with the November policy. In its defense:
  • Persisting in a long-term homosexual relationship is explicitly contrary to the doctrines of the Church. It is also one, which, is very resistant to change.
  • The Church's doctrines, by doctrine, are not influenced by man's desires (though reality is a little more iffy).
  • The blessing of Children is not a saving ordinance.
  • The primary reason why it is done is to turn them into a "child of record". In other words, for all intents and purposes, they are a member without making the consious decision to be so. That means missionary visits, home teachers, and certain callings even IF the child decides they have nothing to do with the Church.
  • Contradictory messages on proper living from two different sources of ultimate authority, Parents and God (through the Church), can be very confusing and even harmful to the child.
Honestly, if I was LGBT, I would've been almosy psyched about the November policy. I could have the child blessed in the comfort of my own home, and given a name and a blessing WITHOUT forcing the child into the Church. Right now, being a married-heterosexual with a child on the way, my extended family doesn't understand why I am so opposed to blessing the child in Church, thereby creating a membership record for my child.

What would've been a better approach, IMHO, would've been to extend an official Church statement, addressing the issue without enforcing any strict implementation. If any LGBT couple is made aware of the challenges and potential consequences of having a child blessed in Church, and is not under pressure from any TBM family members, I don't think anyone in the LDS Church leadership would've been opposed to it. But there is a strong difference between a "policy change" and a "suggestion". The leadership had to make a call.