Let’s do a little crowdsourcing on what the Church in 2018 is up to, your sense of whether the Church as a whole is focusing on the right things (the important things, the big things) or the wrong things (or at least less important things, the little things). My sense is that the last few years have seen a fair amount of emphasis on relatively minor points of doctrine or practice while the bigger problems facing the Church seem largely unaddressed.
Here are some recent examples of putting a lot of emphasis on minor or unimportant things:
- Hot off the press, an insistence on using the full and proper name of the Church, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” and avoiding “the Mormon Church” and even “the LDS Church.” Pretty much everyone agrees this is not going to work and even if it does it just makes for awkward writing. But I expect those directly tied to the Church (CES, the missionary program, curriculum materials, the Deseret News, the Newsroom) will slavishly adopt the new directive.
- Last year, the big push was keeping the Sabbath day holy. This topic seems to get regular attention in the curriculum, local talks, and General Conference talks. I’m pretty sure there isn’t an active, church-going Mormon who doesn’t already know they shouldn’t shop on Sunday or spend the day waterskiing, and most don’t. It seems like the leadership is beating a dead horse here.
- Last year a GA visited my home ward and spend about half of his fifteen minutes addressing the congregation talking about taking the sacrament with your right hand. It wasn’t about the symbolism of the sacrament or communion with God or renewing covenants … it was about using your right hand. How really important it is to take the bread and water with your right hand, not your left. Even those little deacons know how important it is to use only your right hand. A kitten dies every time you take the sacrament with your left hand (okay, he didn’t really say that). But then, he added, if your right arm is in a big cast, you can take it with your left hand. Or if you are sadly missing a right arm, then you can use your left. So it is really, really important to use your right hand, but if you can’t and instead take it with your left hand, no big deal, God understands.
Here are some examples of larger or more important themes that, whether you are personally cheering for them or not, at least represent significant or important goals for the Church and its membership:
- Every young man should serve a mission, said President Kimball. It got a lot of airplay and seemed to have a significant impact. Once upon a time, missionary service for young men was sort of hit or miss affair, more like frosting on the cake than an expectation for every young LDS male. Pres. Kimball changed all that.
- Flood the earth with the Book of Mormon, said President Benson. Way back in the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of LDS scriptural discussion and proof-texting focused on the Old and New Testament. The current focus on the Book of Mormon owes much to Pres. Benson’s push to read and use the Book of Mormon more. Granted, his plea was likely rooted in his view that the Book of Mormon’s discussion of Gadianton bands and secret combinations was telling us all to beware of the Great Communist Conspiracy, and that if we just read the Book of Mormon more carefully we’d all join the John Birch Society. But at least this was a grand theme that captured the attention of the membership and changed the emphasis in the curriculum and in the personal scripture study of millions of Mormons.
- Let’s build hundreds of temples, said President Hinckley. And we did. There are temples all over the place. Billings, Montana has a temple. Afton, Wyoming has a temple. Even Bismarck, North Dakota has a temple. There are at least six LDS temples in Africa. Once upon a time older LDS couples would get up in fast and testimony meeting and talk about visiting all 17 or all 22 LDS temples in the world. That doesn’t happen anymore — there are just too many LDS temples for that.
Am I missing anything? I don’t think the adjustments to home and visiting teaching are really a big change. I don’t think the creation of a merged High Elders quorum is a big change. Maybe the age change to 19 for women was a big change given how many young women are now serving compared to ten years ago.
I’m hoping this is not a “be careful what you ask for” thing. I don’t really want to get an announcement in the next General Conference that we should all move to Missouri next year or that we should all start naming babies with Book of Mormon names to better spread the word. I guess I’m thinking of some progressive change on the Gay Policy that is driving away our youth or the Three-Hour Marathon aka Sunday meetings that is wearing people out. Or maybe making LDS finances transparent by issuing actual financial statements showing contributions, earnings, investments, and expenditures to go along with the annual opinion read over the pulpit at General Conference by the Church’s internal auditors (what use is an opinion on financial statements that are not released?).
Help me out here, people. Has the Church become too focused on the little things that don’t matter so much? What bigger things or themes or policies could energize the membership or move the Church forward?
Wheat & Tares 
I think I’d like to see a complete restructure of ward organization, simplifying all programs and easing the burden on the members and Bishops in particular.
The arrival of the current three hour block was a major turning event of the past.
Well, I’d say the church is coming apart over equal marriage rights, the POX, ordination of women, children being alone with adult men, church finances going into wealth creation rather than charitable endeavors, a certain MTC President who abused his office and perhaps 2 young women and the Brethren being AWOL when they’re desperately needed. So why not discuss the critical question of being called Mormon?
I agree we haven’t had major new initiatives, but there are a LOT of changes in 2018.
–Merging the HP & Elders eliminates one of the major male organizations in the ward, so one less guy at ward council (meaning, women aren’t outnumbered as much).
–Changing the rules to require two adults at every youth/child activity or class was a big change (and openly allowing a second adult in bishop’s interviews, even if it wasn’t required).
–Including “At the Pulpit” excerpts in every Ensign is important – regular members reading historical sermons from women is big.
–Including chapters from the new Church history volumes in monthly church magazines is big, like talking about seer stones and divining rods in the August Ensign. Was planning to write a post on it, but the church is actively working for greater transparency on church history with this new narrative history coming out Sept. 4th. They are even introducing it to the young adults in a worldwide Face to Face session with Elder Cook and two church historians on Sept. 9th. Typically these GA+historian maneuvers are last ditch efforts after people have already left (Swedish Rescue, Boise Rescue, Haugen interview, etc.). Even if they have a similar style to the gospel topics essays, the Church is most definitely NOT hiding this project (as opposed to the more subtle release of the essays).
–We have two major announced program changes. First, the youth/older kid programs will be revamped in 2020. Second, next year’s Come, Follow Me program is changing the way we are structuring Sunday School teaching from Primary on up to Gospel Doctrine.
I agree with Mary Ann that the rate of change has increased. At this point, it’s almost glacial.
If you are asking for a wish list,
Disavowal of polygamy. Just state it was Joseph Smith trying to figure out the sealing power and he mistakenly thought everyone needed to be sealed to a high level Mormon to be saved. Brigham took it a little further under the same impression and then Wilford Woodruff fixed it in 1894.
Change the temple ceremony. I love the covenants that I have made. They have protected me. I can covenant to live the law of obedience, sacrifice, chastity, gospel, the other long one, and consecration without that ceremony. Symbolism meant a lot more to people in 1830. Take out the old language that still has ties to polygamy. Let me come in and sit in the celestial room and just worship if I want to. I will dress in white, just let me come in off the street and sit there for 20 minutes.
Call a woman in each ward to give interviews to women and girls and be available if someone wants counsel from a woman. There have been two women that I respect more than any bishop I have ever had and I value their counsel. We could give her a title like Relief Society President or something like that.
Make church less boring. Paid clergy, shorter time, better curriculum, 5% tithing cut to teachers who will actually prepare a lesson, no testimony meeting, less faith promoting myths, less prophet worship, less focus on details of Old Testament stories like we are preparing for some quiz in heaven. I sit on the stands every week and I can see how bored everyone is. Especially the youth.
Back off of the TRUTH claims. Let’s just realize that maybe God did not want us to have everything figured out and be able to summarize all of his grandeur in neat little 5 sentence paragraphs.
Be honest with the members about how prophets receive revelation. You guys know that a lot of members read into your ambiguous statements and assume that you are having regular meetings with Christ. Just come clean and quit leading people on. It makes swallowing church history a lot easier once that is understood, and a lot of people are just starting to chew on this church history mess.
Fix the missionary program. My oldest son is 13 and will be on a mission in a few years. Here is a novel idea. Service every day until 5:00 and proselytizing from 6:00 to 9:00. 12 month missions. I would have rather shoveled dirt all day than knock on doors in the morning and afternoon. By the time evening came around I was so worn out and depressed it was hard to keep going.
I like most of Zach’s ideas, especially increasing the amount of time missionaries spend doing service.
The suggestions for changes reminded me of this post on BCC:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/08/19/the-laundry-list/amp/
Here are some more suggestions, some of which I put in the comments on the BCC post:
Small changes:
Publish handbook 1
Remove from handbook 1 the mostly ignored injunctions against in vitro fertilization and surgical sterilization.
Perform sealings separate from weddings so that all family and friends can attend weddings.
Let missionaries talk to families whenever they want. In fact, I would urge missionaries and families to ignore rule against phone calls home.
Stop discouraging the use of modern Bible translations, or even better encourage researching multiple translations
improve sacrament meeting talks. Perhaps this could be done by any of the following: public speaking class in Sunday school, more time to prepare, people called to speak on a slightly more regular basis so they hone their skills.
Big changes -I don’t expect these to ever happen. Most active members would probably oppose some of the following:
Ordain women
Accept gays, including those in relationships
De-canonize D&C 132.
As a corporation, the church gets a 9/10.
As a church, the church gets 1/10.
There are many things listed above that I would love to see but do not expect to happen. One thing I hope happens (and could see happening) is a push for bigger wards outside of the Mormon corridor. Our ward of 150 or so active people (of all ages) simply isn’t enough people to really function as it should, especially now that we need 2-deep in every Primary and Sunday School class. Larger wards means you can cut down the number of bishoprics, relief society presidencies, primary presidencies, and elders quorum presidencies leading a to a slightly deeper bench when manning your teaching callings and having more robust attendance at Gospel Essentials and Gospel Doctrine (I know so many people hate Gospel Doctrine, but it’s really the only time I get each week to discuss the Gospel with other adults and it’s often the only thing I really like about going to church – even when it’s awful). I also understand that the burden on leaders increase with larger wards, but I also believe that will often be offset by having enough reliable people to whom things can be delegated.
It is human nature to miss the mission and preserve the institution, right in front of Jesus.
And a disturbing pattern – as the early apostolic churc morphed into an institutional pattern, it lost its love and forgiveness for the body of believers and it became more strict in regards to outward ceremonies and more particular about the theory of faith.
I totally disagree that observing the Sabbath Day is minor or unimportant. I think it’s a major commandment and an essential part of a Christian life and very appropriate to emphasize. To me, the biggest issue that the Church is not addressing well is the ongoing disaster of how LGBTQ+ people fare in our church. I see recognition that past teachings/policies/practices have not been correct or helpful but leaders do not seem to be able to get to a truly healthy and inclusive place on this.
While not hard to implement, I don’t think merging High Priest groups with Elder’s Quorums was an insignificant change. I think it helps put in place an organization that will be easier to accommodate ordaining women. The change essentially helps put Relief Society and the Elder’s Quorum on par with each other. It preserves the ability for men and women to meet separately but puts in place a structure that can easily separate “Church Leadership” from being only in the purview of men. High Priest meetings now are only held with members currently holding callings in Stake Presidencies, Bishoprics, and High Council. These individuals, currently men, will return to the Elder’s Quorum when their assignment’s are complete. When women are ordained this structure does not need to change. While in leadership callings requiring ordination as a High Priest, they will meet in High Priest meetings. When their assignment is complete, they’ll return to the Relief Society.
I figure it is only a matter of time before the Church decides to ordain women. When President Oaks spoke about women and the priesthood he did not cite any doctrine for their prohibition to be ordained. Instead, he essentially said we don’t ordain women because we hadn’t in the past. He didn’t say it won’t happen.
I’d like more resources for upkeep of church properties. My ward moved out of a historic building because the heater went out in the spring and resources weren’t available to repair it by winter. I miss feeling connected to so many generations of our community in that chapel. Now it’s not being used, so it’s kind of a resource-drain.
Also, cleaning and maintenance would be done more reliably if we hired a professional. I respect the dedication of the families who show up to clean every few weeks, and I think it’s not fair to demand that sacrifice of them without demanding it of others who are assigned but don’t show up. That’s not to mention job creation. We could even train members who need work, and thus give them marketable skills that they could take to more competitive jobs later on.
I agree with Dave C. Many policy changes have been putting men and women in increasingly similar organizational structures. EQ and RS are now similar in standing. The renaming of HT/VT to ministering, allowing YW to participate in ministering, and the elimination of scouts in favor of a common YM/YW program improves equality of responsibility between men and women’s orgs. Oaks nudged the ordination door a bit more open when he delared that women acting in their callings do so with priesthood authority.
My hope is that these small but significant changes will continue so that when the revelation to extend the priesthood to all worthy individuals comes the members will collectively say, “Why not? The women and men do basically the same things in the church anyway.”
A note on bigger wards. I live in the South, (currently in Richmond, VA)and here we could combine several wards and not leave anyone traveling too far. Especially chapels that are shared by multiple wards could become one ward. But where I grew up in NC, combining wards means people go from traveling 15-20 minutes to church, to traveling 40-50 minutes to church. It might be more helpful to create more flexibility in the ward/branch structure. Allow more callings to be open to sisters, who are just as competent (and incompetent) and of whom we seem to have more attending. Don’t require the strict quorum structure in Young Mens, when I have three young men total we should all just meet together. Etc etc.
More flexibility would be great in general.
I echo much of the above. Ordain women. Make a place for everyone. Encourage real learning! Change the temple ceremony – separate marriage and sealing. All great things that should happen.
….And to clarify. I don’t care about the name of the Church. People will call you what they will. Believe it or not, ‘Mormon’ is normally said with quite a bit of respect.
I don’t care about someone else’s thoughts on how to live the gospel (Sabbath Day, Sacrament hands, etc).
I don’t think the ministering was much of a change.
I don’t think everyone should serve a mission. And no one should feel obligated to do so.
The last major change I remember from the church was when President Monson added a new mission increasing the three-fold mission to four-fold mission. I remember this happening; I just can’t remember what the new mission was. Can anyone here remind me what it is?
The 4th Mission: care for the poor and needy.
What is saddest to me? We will likely get a better response to last week’s call to drop references to “Mormon” than we did responding to the prophet’s call to add that 4th mission. (What was it again?)
Perhaps Pres. Nelson’s talk last April about revelation (for the Church and personal) will become an important theme. It’s been a part of several of his discourses in recent years.
I confess myself perplexed by the recent refocus on the Church’s formal name given the current issues the Chuch faces, i.e. increasing attrition amongst millennials, youth suicides and more recently, inappropriate interview questions. Initially, this approach appears to be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The authorities may well have good cause to focus on this and my post is simply an observation rather than a criticism. That said, I am still bewildered.
MTodd for the win.
“Initially, this approach appears to be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. ”
Close! But I think it’s designed to distract from the iceberg ripping the side open.
Every time I think about the benefits of paid clergy, I’m also reminded of the drawbacks. Look at the PA scandal right now. We had issues with the Joseph Bishop MTC President scandal and that was just one man being protected by probably one other man (who didn’t believe the woman’s claim). When you add economic incentives to protecting the institution, you get even deeper scandals because you’ve exponentially increased fealty to the institution.
Anyhoo, I’m going to go out on a limb to say that some of these seemingly minor changes might end up being the kind of thing that bears greater fruit later on. I’m skeptical about the name change . . . but do we talk much about being the “restored” church of Jesus Christ today? Or do we get tied up in our own short-handed nickname? Do our kids really understand that our doctrine says that’s what we are? For me at least, the jury’s out on this one. Insisting on what others call us is IMO dumb and destined to fail, but for us to talk that way internally is not the worst idea I’ve heard.
I also think the EQ/HP merge is significant for a few reasons, including those mentioned above (better gender integration in decision-making bodies at the ward level). It also takes out that harmful elitist rhetoric for the men by making them all a quorum together. One of my main objections to the PH as it stands is that, like all human institutions, it’s often a big status play. Is that really what Jesus taught? That you should have ambition to achieve power and importance? And yet, that’s what it has been like with these levels. It may seem like a minor change, but there were plenty of self-important old gasbags who had the wind taken out of their sails by this seeming come-down in the world.
And the mission age change for women, mark my words, is one of the most important changes of my 50 years. The only thing that would improve it is to make the ages the exact same for men & women (I’d probably move it up to 20 for both, but at least AT LEAST 19–18 is just too young, at least for American boys), mission length the same (I love the 12 month idea!), leadership roles open to both sexes (yes, women should be leading men), and the levels of encouragement the same (here I’d bring it down to making it encouraged for both, but not “mandatory” for either). With more women serving, we’ll see greater respect for women in this church than we have seen before. We’ll see more men relying on women’s judgment and input in decision making, trusting them with important work, and we’ll see more women trusting themselves and leaning in, expecting more.
The “ministering” change is also one that, believe it or not, I think will prove to be more significant for a few reasons: 1) it’s an overhaul of a signature program (VT/HT) that had probably on some level become stale and rote, 2) the EQ and RS have to work TOGETHER on the assignments and assessing the needs, 3) we are getting away from checking the box on what a visit is (from us to them) and paying more attention on listening to their needs (them to us), and 4) we are integrating the YW in ways that they haven’t been before (although the YM were–my daughter is now my partner).
So, I can see what people mean when they say it’s window-dressing or it’s rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but these things may prove to be more significant.
Other changes I would certainly welcome:
1) no more worthiness interviews, full stop. Definitely no more closed door one-to-one interviews with our youth. Just let people self-affirm without the theater of discernment.
2) Two hour block already. We’ve been clamoring for this since time immemorial. Less is more.
3) Garments really need to go. There is nobody out there who would miss dealing with them, and they are evidence of the church being Utah-centric. They don’t work in hot or humid climates and are particularly problematic for women’s health. Symbols are great, and there are other ways to symbolize commitment. This is one of those where the older generations are going to be POed if the younger ones don’t have to go through what they did.
4) The sexist structure of the temple and the polygamous undertones need to go. It’s long long overdue. Let the temple be about making covenants to be a better Christian, not to keep women in line under men.
“plenty of self-important old gasbags who had the wind taken out of their sails by this seeming come-down in the world” Maybe so, but also plenty of self-important old gasbags who did not have the wind taken out of their sails, but instead have dominated discussion and pontificated in EQ to the point of younger men not participating or even not coming. Previously we just had other HPs not participating or not coming. How this works varies widely by individual or at least by ward.
Based on Dave’s list, I think the Church is at a place where they could best be described by the words of Paul H.Dunn. They are caught up in the “thick of thin things.”
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
As far as the growing backlog of “progressive” changes that some of us would like to see — you can’t change too many things too fast. There is a need for institutional stability to maintain continuity and identity so average members roll with the changes rather than becoming alienated. But “too much change too fast” is hardly the danger here. I just wish they would take one of those substantive changes and actually run with it. From Zach’s list above, just undertake a formal disavowal of polygamy or an update and revision of what goes on in the temple, just one thing.
Mary Ann and Angela C make a good argument that the current changes of the last couple of years have the potential to be big changes. So much depends on whether there is sustained institutional follow-thru or whether it gets lost in the busyness and bureaucracy of Mormon life. Consider the significant increase in sisters going on missions and doing so at a younger age — is there any institutional push to open up new opportunities for these experienced and motivated RM sisters to serve in the wards? How about allowing all-female Sunday School Presidencies? [Mixed gender presidencies just seems too much for leadership to endorse.] I have not heard a peep from the Church about how to tap into this growing pool of younger RM sisters, either for the benefit of the Church or to benefit those sisters by providing new opportunities to serve.
I know some consider these minor changes, but it does appear that Pres Nelson is making a push for “too much change too fast.” I mean in 2 days of General Conference, they announced the EQ/HP merger, and then modifying the HT/VT program. Now he’s trying to get us to quit calling ourselves Mormons. He’s doubling down on the PoX and putting it in manuals as an example of revelation. Say what you will, but he’s making his mark in the 8 months he’s been in office. It seems like he’s trying to do as much as he can before he dies. (He is 93 after all.) It seems to me he has wanted to make these changes for a long time, and isn’t wasting time. (I like the HT/VT changes, ambivalent about EQ/HP and Mormon, and hate the PoX and everything associated with it.) He is much more vibrant than any other 93 year old prophet we’ve had. He’s kicking but, taking names, and fashioning the church in his image, and he’s hardly taking “no” for an answer. It seems he has his surgeon hat on and making cuts where he thinks they belong.
M-H, from what I’ve read about the Church curriculum process (not necessarily CES (of which GBH is purported to have said he wished it would join the Church), and heard from others involved in the curriculum/manual-writing process, it is possible that the seminary curriculum including the POX issue is not because of Pres Nelson doubling down, but rather others thinking they’re doing the right thing (or currying favor) by including what he said as apostle and president of the Q12. I’m not at all sure which it is.
Do the new church history materials say that God commanded polygamy? If yes, my girls will feel assured that they made the right decision to distance themselves from the church, which is disappointing to me.
All the sexism that flows from the temple and Section 132 is just too humiliating for today’s young women.
How very sad for the church, too – to be so caught up in respecting their polygamous ancestors that they disrespect the women right in front of them.
They’ll eventually abandon the claim, I think. I really am sad that it’ll be too late for my daughters.
In general, I don’t think the nebulous talk of historian/apologists like Stephen Harper serves the church well. The answer to everything is to have faith and wait for some future understanding. I doubt that flies with the younger set, because they’re deciding *now* who do date/marry, whether to look amongst active or departing members for this most important decision. Many of them can’t find good enough reasons to do all the waiting apparently required to make sense of our history and current events.
The one big change that I would like to see? The structure of the church to change such that ideas from the “little guy” like those listed above actually get acknowledged and considered.
Good lists from Zach, Rockwell, and Angela. I don’t mind the middle block hour as I enjoy the gospel study review or family history presentations, but I wouldn’t be fighting to keep it if it were on the chopping block.
I would like to support Rockwell’s proposal on canon revision. In addition to the suggested decanonization of D&C 132, I would like to see revision of the wording of Moroni 9:9 and it’s conflation of sexual violence with being deprived of that which is most precious. I would like to see the BofM term “skin of blackness” be replaced with something like “visage of corruption”. Also a change to Moses 7:22 which states that the seed of Cain were ‘black’. With people using digital scriptures, the implementation of these kinds of changes has never been more opportune.
I’m one who’d agree that there’s a lot of overemphasis in the wrong places, but one thing I’ve been happy to see is the church’s focus on refugees and immigration issues.
Dave – really interesting and thought provoking post. I’ve had a good read over the post and the comments. Many of the ideas are amazing and thoughtful. I won’t throw any more comments in regarding ideas, but I will comment on the idea of change generally.
The changes that have been made and many of the ones above seem to fit into the category of “safe and congruent” change. These changes don’t really change the makeup or thrust of the church’s position. I disagree with those above regarding things like Elders and high priests etc – that these are significant changes. They aren’t really – they are changed that don’t effect the overall running and position of the church.
Things like changing their position of LGBT issues, the sexism in the temple, the ability for average members to have a say (HT – Troy) and transparency both in history and finances ARE significant and do change the running and position of the church.
I see almost every recent change made by the church as belonging to the former rather than the later – with the possible exception of the POX.
Large organisations like the church who have run into dramas only make wholesale changes when they reach absolute crisis point. I think we are close, but not quite here yet.
Angela – I would have voted a thumbs up 1000 times if I could have for your comment.
One thing I would add to Angela’s list of things that need to change is the prohibition against tea and coffee.
Lois, I agree, the prohibition on coffee and tea needs to go. Soda is much worse (sugar and fizz). And the ban is pushing members toward soda.
But most of all I would like to see the Church finally fix it’s black problem. Church leaders need to state unequivocally that God was NOT responsible for the ban. And then we need to apologize. And not a wishy-washy apology.
Bigger wards is not going to happen. There is currently a strong push from SLC to area and stake presidencies for smaller wards and smaller stakes, even in the US (they’ve always been smaller outside the US). Internal church studies show highest percentages of member engagement in wards of 300-400 on the membership roll… Especially those of us outside the inter mountain west should expect unit splitting and shrinking over the next several years…
Zach–I love your ideas, but I laughed at the idea of a “tithing discount” for good teachers. (Laughed in a fun way, not a scornful one.) I’m reminded of the series Black Mirror and its vision of a dystopian society where every single social interaction gets a rating. If more than 50% of my Gospel Doctrine students rate me 4 stars or better, I can get the discount! If I fall below a three-star average, my tithing goes up. 🙂