Supposed Blizzard of Changes coming at General Conference

[Curt Sunshine]

People like to speculate. I don't, since it too often leads to disappointment. If changes happen, great; I can celebrate the unexpected. If not, okay; I won't be disappointed.

Lowered expectations can be a good thing, even if they are frustrating when I step back and allow myself to dream.

[SilentDawning]

People like to speculate. I don't, since it too often leads to disappointment. If changes happen, great; I can celebrate the unexpected. If not, okay; I won't be disappointed.

Lowered expectations can be a good thing, even if they are frustrating when I step back and allow myself to dream.

It reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit on low expectations. How they are the key to a happy life. With low expectations:

1. Your spouse looks good.
2. Your job looks good.
3. Your church looks good.
4. Your income looks good.

I am on the #3 plan now.

As far as speculation goes, I think it's often an expression of hope, something that keeps people alive. Sure there is disappointment, but the hope during the speculation period can be sustaining for a while.

[DevilsAdvocate]

8) An extension to #7. Many will apostatize because of what will be said, they will be hitting the theme of follow the prophet, choose you this day whom ye will serve, because whatever is said will test you. Aside from hitting the theme of follow the prophet real hard (it is general conference after all ) I don't see this happening.

I don't see this happening on a large scale. The church is VERY protective of its membership. They like to see the membership numbers growth rate increasing just like large companies like to see their stock price growing. I don't think there will ever be policies meant to purge us, although I do think we have seen some people leave voluntarily over the November policy. If there are massive exodii, it would be a result of the leaders being out of touch with the membership.

If it was intentional, and announced that way, it would be evidence this whole thing is more true than I figured. Organizational interests drive the bus in our religion. If you accept the premise that no one really knows when the second coming will happen, I can't see leaders enacting policies that would cause major bloodletting. No way.

It actually wouldn't surprise me if Nelson rolled out some new policy changes and/or "revelations" that would be especially hard for many Church members to accept. Just look at what he has already done so far. This is the same guy that publicly doubled down on the November policy, abandoned scouts, combined the high priests and Elders quorums, changed home/visiting teaching to "ministering" and publicly discouraged the use of Mormon and LDS after the recent "I'm a Mormon" advertising campaign and so many Church websites already used these terms.

Basically it looks like if Nelson thinks something is a good idea for whatever reasons then he is typically going to just go ahead and do it without worrying much if at all about how many members will react to it, all the implications and possible unintended side effects of it, etc. To me there is no question Nelson is capable of making major negative or difficult changes and the more interesting question is what kind of changes could be seriously under consideration that could actually cause very many Church members to leave? As far as the two hour block rumor I think it has gotten to the point where now many Church members will be disappointed if it doesn't happen.

[dande48]

As far as the two hour block rumor I think it has gotten to the point where now many Church members will be disappointed if it doesn't happen.

My wife brought up the two hour block rumors yesterday. She said, "I don't see how it could possibly work. I mean, the first half hour of relief society is taken up just by announcements!"

[nibbler]

My wife brought up the two hour block rumors yesterday. She said, "I don't see how it could possibly work. I mean, the first half hour of relief society is taken up just by announcements!"

That's a regular PH opening exercises thing too. But...

1) Most of the announcements were made during SM. I guess it helps with the people that missed them because they came in late, but I've got to think that there are far fewer people to hear announcements during the 3rd hour (went home or are in primary or YM/YW) so I've got to question whether we need to be using 30 minutes of our meetings making announcements. 30 minutes during the 3rd hour is probably a slight exaggeration but I bet we do spend 30 minutes on announcements when adding the time we take during SM and during PH/RS.

2) Sometimes I get the feeling that we stretch the announcements portion of the meeting out to purposely leave less time for the lesson. At least in PH. I bet if church went to 2 hours we'd find a way to shorten the announcements. We'd be forced into a situation where we'd have to be more efficient with our time as opposed to the current model of, "Junk. How am I going to fill all this time? I know, announcements!"

3) A lot of time is spent on announcements that are always the same. Does the EQP have any announcements? Of course he does. He's going to get up and remind people to do their ministering teaching. Yup, there he goes. Does the deacon's quorum president have any announcements? Nope, says he hasn't got anything. No wait, the young men's president reminded him of the camp out they had. Turns out the camp out was "good." Does anyone else have any announcements? Going once... going twice... no. Now we'll run out the rest of the clock reading from a talk.

Sorry for the jaded comments. They are made in jest. My only point is that there's lots of fat that could be trimmed. Lots. I think because on any given Sunday we've got maybe 30 minutes of material that we have to pad out into 180 minutes... because church has gotta be 180 minutes.

So this post isn't just me complaining, here's another rumor that I'll start.

Relaxing WoW requirements. I got to thinking (dangerous), during the mission years I taught a lot of people that would have been baptized if not for a coffee or smoking habit. I wonder whether the church would relax WoW requirements (even if only in order to be baptized, you'd still have to comply for the temple) so they could experience a greater influx of converts.

[SilentDawning]

8) An extension to #7. Many will apostatize because of what will be said, they will be hitting the theme of follow the prophet, choose you this day whom ye will serve, because whatever is said will test you. Aside from hitting the theme of follow the prophet real hard (it is general conference after all ) I don't see this happening.

I don't see this happening on a large scale. The church is VERY protective of its membership. They like to see the membership numbers growth rate increasing just like large companies like to see their stock price growing. I don't think there will ever be policies meant to purge us, although I do think we have seen some people leave voluntarily over the November policy. If there are massive exodii, it would be a result of the leaders being out of touch with the membership.

If it was intentional, and announced that way, it would be evidence this whole thing is more true than I figured. Organizational interests drive the bus in our religion. If you accept the premise that no one really knows when the second coming will happen, I can't see leaders enacting policies that would cause major bloodletting. No way.

It actually wouldn't surprise me if Nelson rolled out some new policy changes and/or "revelations" that would be especially hard for many Church members to accept. Just look at what he has already done so far. This is the same guy that publicly doubled down on the November policy, abandoned scouts, combined the high priests and Elders quorums, changed home/visiting teaching to "ministering" and publicly discouraged the use of Mormon and LDS after the recent "I'm a Mormon" advertising campaign and so many Church websites already used these terms.

Basically it looks like if Nelson thinks something is a good idea for whatever reasons then he is typically going to just go ahead and do it without worrying much if at all about how many members will react to it, all the implications and possible unintended side effects of it, etc. To me there is no question Nelson is capable of making major negative or difficult changes and the more interesting question is what kind of changes could be seriously under consideration that could actually cause very many Church members to leave? As far as the two hour block rumor I think it has gotten to the point where now many Church members will be disappointed if it doesn't happen.

With the exception of the November policy, I don't think these changes will tick off people. They are all changes that people seemed to embrace. A lot of people thought Scouts was a racket when it comes to fees etcetera. I don't know if he unilaterally makes these kinds of decisions without thought for the membership, but I know growth in membership and activation/retention is a huge issue for them. I honestly don't think they will enact policies that cause a bloodletting as a result -- if it happens, it will be due to poor judgment.

[dande48]

Sometimes I get the feeling that we stretch the announcements portion of the meeting out to purposely leave less time for the lesson.

Lol. Been there, done that!

[On Own Now]

Relaxing WoW requirements. I got to thinking (dangerous), during the mission years I taught a lot of people that would have been baptized if not for a coffee or smoking habit. I wonder whether the church would relax WoW requirements (even if only in order to be baptized, you'd still have to comply for the temple) so they could experience a greater influx of converts.

I would love that to happen for the reason you stated. It seems so strange to say, "Yes, Brother Jones, I see that you have faith, wish to follow Jesus and join His Church. But I notice that your house smells like coffee, so until you can stop that, you are not qualified to be baptized as a disciple of our Lord." It would make sense to move to a model of being OK with imperfectness. I mean, if a member has a cup of coffee, do we excommunicate them?

On the other hand, we have two heart surgeons in the FP/Q12 and we have 13 others in those groups who have probably never had a sip of coffee/beer in their lives.

[DarkJedi]

3) A lot of time is spent on announcements that are always the same. Does the EQP have any announcements? Of course he does. He's going to get up and remind people to do their ministering teaching. Yup, there he goes. Does the deacon's quorum president have any announcements? Nope, says he hasn't got anything. No wait, the young men's president reminded him of the camp out they had. Turns out the camp out was "good." Does anyone else have any announcements? Going once... going twice... no. Now we'll run out the rest of the clock reading from a talk.

Interestingly, one thing I have noticed since the implementation of ministering is that I no longer hear the "get out and do your ministering" thing, at least in my own ward. I did hear it in a ward I was visiting recently.

I do agree that sometimes the announcements can get carried away. There has been a concerted effort to limit announcements, especially in SM, in my stake. Generally only major announcements are made in SM and people are told to refer to the bulletin, which is admittedly not always accurate or complete. PH, and I assume RS, are much more long winded with announcements. Yet, a friend I often speak with is generally unaware of things which have been announced even though I sit near him most Sundays and know that he was there during the announcements.

[dande48]

Relaxing WoW requirements. I got to thinking (dangerous), during the mission years I taught a lot of people that would have been baptized if not for a coffee or smoking habit. I wonder whether the church would relax WoW requirements (even if only in order to be baptized, you'd still have to comply for the temple) so they could experience a greater influx of converts.

I would love that to happen for the reason you stated. It seems so strange to say, "Yes, Brother Jones, I see that you have faith, wish to follow Jesus and join His Church. But I notice that your house smells like coffee, so until you can stop that, you are not qualified to be baptized as a disciple of our Lord." It would make sense to move to a model of being OK with imperfectness. I mean, if a member has a cup of coffee, do we excommunicate them?

I've heard that no one in the Church has ever had official Church disciplinary action taken against them for violating the Word of Wisdom (not counting missionaries, or those in leadership). The worst that can happen is losing a TR, the bishop saying you can't take the sacrament, and possibly assigning you to a new calling. On the levels of sin, it's pretty low.

There's also this human thing, where if you give someone some wiggle room, they are going to wiggle. There are so many laxed commandments no one pays attention to; with the WOW, eat meat sparingly? Eat the proper fruits and veggies in their season? Almost nobody does it. If the word of wisdom is enforced how it is currently, people will break it "sparingly". If the word of wisdom is relaxed, people will break it ALL THE TIME.

It's the same thing with the BYU honor code. Do people still fornicate? Look at porn? Drink? You bet they do! But they also do it much less than they would if it wasn't so strictly enforced.