Years ago my job required me to troubleshoot complex electronic systems on US Navy ships. We would be called as the “experts” when the sailors couldn’t fix the problem. I once flew half way around the world, and got lowered by cable from a helicopter to get to a ship that was in a very bad place in the world. We would sometime bring a representative from the company that made the disabled system, the original equipment manufacture (or OEM, the real expert!).
We normally had a good idea what the problem was by looking at the symptoms, and by reading the “fault codes” that were built into a self diagnostic system. Kind of like the “check engine light” on your car, only these fault codes were actually useful, unlike the idiot light in your car.
But sometimes we had no idea what the problem was. That is when we would start Easter-egging. This is what we called it when we just started changing out parts until the thing started working When it did start working, we knew the last thing we swapped out was the bad part!
I’ve noticed that the church does a lot of Easter-egging when they get a fault code. During my mission to Chile, somebody decided that the hundreds of baptisms a month the mission was having was not enough (fault code), but they really didn’t have any idea how to fix it. So they started Easter-egging. First was the “home blessing” program, where we offered to bless peoples homes. That didn’t fix it, so then we tried the “baptismal challenge”. This is where we challenged people to get baptized in out first meeting, the theory being we would not waste out time with the unprepared, and only do one lesson unless they were truly going to get baptized. This did not fix the fault code either.
Today we see this as the Q15 stare at a blinking check engine light in the church statistics. Not a lot of young men are leaving for a mission? Was it because of financial hardship to the families? Shorten missions to 18 months (1982). The blinking light didn’t go out, so change back 3 years later. Young men are leaving the church after they turn 18 and move away from home? Swap out the “missionary age circuit card” and let them go at 18, and lets see if that keeps more YM in the church.
There is nothing wrong with Easter-egging when you have run out of intelligent ideas. I used it all the time with varying degrees of successes. But if you claim that your change is because you spoke to God (the OG OEM!), and it still does not work, then you have a problem.
So what examples have you seen of Easter-egging by church leaders, either at the local or general level? Is there anything wrong with it if a church that claims direct revelation from God does it, or is this a case of seeing “through a glass, darkly”, and I should cut them some slack?
Wheat & Tares 
1. June 2015: the US Supreme Court clears the way for gay marriage
2. Nov 2015: the exclusion policy put into place
3. PR nightmares and internal dissent
4. April 2019: reversal (sort of) of #2
I have noticed this too. I called it Silver-Bulletism-Syndrome SBS to my wife. I don’t know if it was area authorities or general authorities passing it down, but it seems for the last 15 years they are just out of ideas and throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. I remember one extreme cringe moment when the did a role play of what ward council should look like. The implication was that if we, at the ward level, would have more efficient Ward Council meetings, the church would blossom, missionary work would skyrocket etc… I felt this way on my mission too. Every conference was them letting us know how it was our fault the baptism rate was so low. Never mind the fact they were giving us a shitty product to pedal, it was somehow my fault for not showing exact obedience. We had a Brazilian GA named Elder Damiani come and chastise us and on the spot made a mission rule that we were to invite 5 people PER DAY, to be baptized. Screw the commitment pattern or the missionary guide book that we had been studying every day, new rule in town. I’ve ranted long enough, but these boys are looking more clueless every damn day.
Yes it makes it worse that they call themselves prophets.
“direct revelation from God” – a lot to unpack there.
Specifically to missions, a sensitive topic for me these days as I have a child serving in an area where COVID restrictions are relatively minor, thankfully. We know several other kids currently serving and my TBM wife shocked me by saying they will probably have PTSD – a lot of Easter-egging just to feel productive (car washes, free cookies, free lemonade, “Bible study”).
A generation ago a lot of us served in Europe – why the shift to Africa and Latin America? Please don’t quote me 1 Nephi 14:12.
You’d think if there were divine revelation Easter-egging simply wouldn’t be necessary.
I can understand fallible mortal beings — even “expert” mortal beings — having to resort to it from time to time. But prophets with a gift of divine revelation?
So many examples. A couple that come to mind for the broader church are a new proclamation and logo in 2020 (gasp!) and the New and Returning Member Progress form that was supposed to dramatically change the minds of inactive people.
On a local level my favorite is the “new” approach that surfaces in ward council chronically where you will have five names to focus on as a WC. Once they get reactivated or the non-member spouse gets baptized then you replace that name with another one, until everyone is active and going to the temple. The problem is that this plan doesn’t ever go well, and the plan doesn’t really account for people saying “go away and don’t come back” to the members. So after a fruitless 2-3 months of it, it falls apart and doesn’t get spoken of for another 6-12 months until the new high council member attending you ward council says the stake presidency has a new idea about making a list of focus families….
Another local one in my area 4-5 years ago was a very aggressive push for everyone to read a book called The Power of Everyday Missionaries. Promised to change lives, etc if you read it.
I’m thinking technical systems present simpler problems to manage, diagnose, and fix than social systems — whether that be a corporation or a government agency or a nonprofit. There are experts for technical systems. But for managing and identifying/correcting problems with social systems and organizations, the talent, knowledge, and insight is much more general. Based more in experience and insight than specific training. At least corporations and businesses have a clear target to focus on: net profit, the bottom line. For nonprofits, even a guiding principle can be harder to define. Sometimes management really doesn’t have much of a clue.
Example: What’s the purpose of the missionary program? Sure, to produce converts. But so much of the leadership justification for all the time and effort poured into the missionary program is about building up the missionaries. And strengthening the Church overseas. And show obedience to the Lord’s commands. It’s hard to improve the program, make it more efficient or whatever, when there are so many competing goals. Even Easter Egging won’t help if you don’t have a good definition of success to measure the effect and outcome of a given change. “Serving a mission” has been around long enough that it’s just something young Mormons do. Explanations and justifications are almost irrelevant. Success or failure are almost irrelevant. It’s just what Mormons do. The fact that leadership is now doing its best to move the whole program right back to how it was pre-Covid shows how little real strategic management or creative thinking is involved. As opposed to Easter Egging (let’s change something and see if that helps), the imperative of the thoroughly bureaucratic LDS system is generally: Don’t change anything (unless we are really forced to by events or legal authorities).
My list could be endless.
Planning to.cut back Sunday leadership meeting so you spend more time at home, then one month later to revert to endless Sunday leadership meetings.
The read entire Book of Mormon contents within 1 month and then later suggesting we slow down and read.the.scriptures slowly to discover them…then a few montbs later another lets read the book of mormon in 6 weeks program.
The new definition of translate
Missionaries are no longer going to find their investigators, it is the member responsibility, tje 2 months later when the missionaries have zero investigators. Tell missionaries to find their own investigators.
You can not talk about the temple it is too sacred….to now lets talk about the temple.
The entire missionary program….memorize discussions…no memorize, speak from heart…no follow new book
No travel log testimonies, no little children testimonies, short sweet testimonies……..now will someone, anyone please stand.up and talk because we habe another 15 minutes of time to fill
Investigators can not be baptized until attending 2 sacrament meetings…..2 minths later baptize anyone.
A new member will only be confirmed in sacrament meeting in front of the whole congregation…..then 2 montjs later back to giving holy ghost immediately after baptism.
Young children are not allowed to saturday nigjt stake conference meeting, OK now 8 year olds are expected to attend.
I’m all for the Church trying new things but lots seem like rearranging chairs on a sinking ship. Some of the big problems with Easter egging in the Church might be (1) an unwillingness to make big changes that might be necessary (too many sacred cow parts that they will never remove and might be the real problem); (2) an unwillingness to rethink whether certain goals or functions are even worthwhile; (3) an unwillingness to solicit, listen, and respond to meaningful feedback from members (they don’t need to rely solely on “check engine light” when they could just as well ask people what’s wrong!) and indeed a culture that stifles dissent and transparency and an unwillingness to acknowledge that changes are being made to address problems because that would require acknowledging the problem.
Recently in a meeting they gave ideasfor what parents need to do to help our kids who are all disengaging from the Church. Once again, let’s blame parents, and youth leaders, and create new programs … when in my experience youth are disengaging because they don’t believe in a racist sexist homophobic God and if I parent them to accept that kind of God well then I *would* actually be a problem …
Literally every doctrine, every policy of the LDS church falls in this category for the past190 years. It is used until enough people question and.then the easter egg hunt starts……prior generations would accept an idea for 20 even 100 years….then the church would change. If you study.the detailed history of LDS church this has happened over and over……..however now it is happening at an accelerated pace. Ideas that would last for 50 years….now are changing annually even weekly.
The church needs to be a vechile that allows us to find God in our own way and what works for us…..the church needs to stop being the end all resource for every small choice in our life. The church is not God and needs to stop trying to replace him. but they make these easter egg.hunts because their whole focus of their mission is wrong.
One Easter egg I would like to see… let’s actually celebrate Easter!
Let’s have the date of Easter Sunday actually be more important than keeping general conference on the first weekend of April.
Thank you for expressing many things that describe the Easter Egg Principle in your church experience so I don’t have to.
I see the church as very reactionary. If something doesn’t work, change it and hope for the best.
I wish the church was more visionary, in other words create, proclaim, make policy that will be for the betterment of all of us. Instead we get things like 2 hour church, and a change to the church logo.
I know some big things that they claim as revelation are not. For example, changing the black priesthood ban. ( I will not detail this as not to upset people of color.) Also the Proclamation on the Family. That was written mostly by Dallin H. Oaks as an amicus brief to submit to the courts, to fight the gay marriage resolution being litigated in Hawaii. Then polished up as a revelation for the Church.
The last one: The November 2015 policy concerning LGBTQ called the POX. That was horrible and caused many people to leave the church, gay individuals, their families and allies. And many Suicides.
It was not called a revelation at that time.. Then President Nelson proclaimed it was a revelation when giving a talk. And then the reversal. “God is so good to us.” So it’s back to just regular discrimination, as before.
I love the Gospel. But I have some problems with the church. What I do is out of allegiance to God.
I often hear about some pilot program or another. Every one of those could be considered easter eggs. I don’t mind our leaders learning by trial and error, but I could do without the air of constant revelation and even infallibility.
Meet the Mormons, Mormon Helping Hands, the I’m a Mormon campaign… and then declaring that word a major victory for Satan a few years later. Surely THAT will fix everything!
Toad hit the nail on the head. If the Easter egg hunt were couched in terms of a member-participatory process, we would be surprised by all of the awesome ideas that would percolate up (shoot – can you say percolate in church?).
Instead, every program and practice has to come down cloaked in an air of divinity. To get compliance? To shift the blame if it doesn’t go well?
As it is, the landscape is littered with evidence that the Prophets don’t prophesy, the Seers don’t see (or translate, as the Mormon definition seems to have become), and the Revelators offer no actual revelation (because, “when you can get 15 strong willed men to agree on something – that’s revelation”).
Honestly, that is what is killing the church. Because no one expects anyone to be infallible, acting as if you are makes you look the fool.
I’m with Toad and BeenThere. It’s ok to try new things and have them fail. That’s part and parcel of a large organization that exists for now a couple hundred years.
The problem is when you throw the term “revelation” behind almost all of it. Then you have to dig into the question of, do most leaders really know what true revelations is vs. simple confirmation bias of feeling happy?
Dave B suggested that there is specialized knowledge related to fixing technical stuff but not with large social groups of people rather than machines. He said there is no specialized training for problems facing human organizations. He forgets the fields of sociology and psychology. He forgets that there are people trained in how big organizations function. He forgets there are people trained in human behavior. With the right experts hired, the church could solve its problems with less Easter Egging.
I would like to suggest that if the church took advantage of the experts in psychology and sociology that they could solve their problems with a lot less Easter egging. Big corporation hire experts trained in Human Resources. How many of you ever worked for a large company with no HR department.
But our church hires lawyers to solve its problems. This became evident with the POX, which seemed tailored to keep the church out of law suits rather than actually help the people in the church who were gay or had gay family members. It didn’t address the suicide of young gay members. It didn’t help wards that had active gay members attending know how to treat them. Any one trained in human behavior or human interactions could have told them it would be a disaster. A person trained in human behavior could have told them it would trigger anger and possibly a whole bunch of people resigning from the church. But they hire a team of lawyers when they really need a Human Resources team to advise them.
“With the right experts hired, the church could solve its problems with less Easter Egging.”
Yes, but finding the right experts is not as simple as looking for people trained in HR, sociology, or psychology. Each of those fields has historically also had its quacks, fads, political influences, and failures — like any other field. Perhaps what is needed is revelation on which experts to hire! 🙂
BTW, If the original POX was “tailored” by lawyers at all, it was a very bad lawyering job. That was immediately apparent to more than one lawyer with minimal or no formal study of HR, psychology or sociology. As closely modeled as it was on the then existing policy as to children of polygamous parents, it would not be surprising if no lawyer at all had a hand in its drafting — not even DHO. The moment it was said to be for the protection of children, it was apparent that any such policy needed only to be a clarification of the then existing parental consent policy to ensure informed consent — the same solution the FP reached 3 1/2 years later. A delay made necessary (in the views of some) only by RMN’s rash, and undoubtedly wrong, January 2016 speech claiming revelation to all the Q15. There were other unfortunate dynamics in the end run somebody took around otherwise established procedures for vetting policy changes. I suspect the POX was a matter of a reactionary response to the SCOTUS decision, fear of normalization of gays in our congregations, and a power play by the President of the Q12, with a hint of agreement from President Monson who was by then, it is said, not “all there.” If it was reactionism and a power play, it would hardly be unique in our history. We’ve had those at least since JS’ death and probably before. It seems natural to the human condition.
I expect Been There has it right. It certainly worked out that way as to the POX.
@wondering I’m pretty positive that KMC had its hands in the POX. They doesn’t mean they did a good job … or that the first Pres took their advice … but 10/10 there were lawyers involved in that.
I do agree that hiring lawyers as experts to fix everything is absurd. And I say that as a lawyer. The most important thing I’ve learned as a lawyer is to look for non-lawyers to come up with non-legal solutions to problems. Legal solutions should be the last resort.
@Andy I really don’t think Nelson knows the difference between confirmation bias / elevation emotion and “revelation”.
Elisa, Yes, it would not be surprising if KMc had its hands in the POX. I’ve seen bad lawyering from that firm in another thoughtless and ignorant church policy in the past. It didn’t have nearly the kind of impact the POX did and got fixed promptly when I pointed out the problem to KMc. Given how bad the POX “lawyering” was and the way it was rushed through the Q12 without following policy procedures (per Greg Prince and others), it would also not be surprising if KMc did not have its hand in it. It would take exactly no legal expertise to adapt the children-of-polygamous-parent policy to create the POX. Personally, I think RMN is sufficiently self-confident that he would feel no need to consult KMc, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t or that, if he did, that he followed KMc advice.
The policy about what to do about polygamists in the church was effective for polygamists because polygamy is learned behavior. So, growing up in a home with polygamist parents “causes” polygamy. The leaders of the church were still acting on the idea that being gay was learned behavior and that growing up in a gay home would cause the children to be gay. My first psychology class Way way way back in ancient history of 1968 taught that being homosexual was inborn behavior that it was not learned at all but something a person was born with. Psychologists knew back then that it was inborn, but DHO was still giving talks about choosing to be gay 40-50 years later. The POX was based on the idea that gay parents would teach their children the same way polygamists do. If the church had listened to a psychologist, even once on the subject in the past 50 years they would not be scientifically back in the 30-40’s on the subject.
Of course if they had any common sense they would have seen that the POX was a disaster in the making, so I guess consulting with a psychologist was unnecessary if they had common sense.
And there is good evidence that the Family Proclamation was written by lawyers for a case in Hawaii. But the church had to adopt it as doctrine in order for it to be effective in court. And they could not announce to the church that it was written by lawyers to fight LGBT rights, nope, it had to be passed off as prophecy.
Too many lawyers and not enough prophecy.
Yes. There were some who taught by (and before) 1968 that homosexuality was inborn. But it was not until 1973, did the American Psychiatric Association remove the pathological diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
I have not followed DHO’s talks on the subject closely, but I have noticed that it is common among many to confuse “choosing to be gay” with “choosing to engage in homoerotic behaviors.” I wonder sometimes how much misunderstanding on the part of both leaders and listeners results from that confusion.
At least as late as 1976, electroshock “therapy” was in use at BYU in an effort to change sexual orientation. That was under the direction of trained psychologists. Maybe the brethren did listen to psychologists after 1968. I think in 2020 Allen Bergin got around to apologizing for his role in those theories. Maybe the question should be which ones should have been listened to. After all it was psychologists (or supposed psychologists) who were responsible for the recovered memory debacle of the 80s and others (largely Elizabeth Loftus) responsible for ultimately debunking those damaging theories and practices.
Maybe there are too many psychologists [and lawyers] and not enough prophecy. 🙂
Sometimes “call in the experts” merely results in sending in the clowns. Almost every lawyer who has litigated cases calling for expert testimony has encountered that problem, though they usually use a less-kind word for such clowns.
I would love to see an Easter egg in the form of returning to our radical theological roots. More discussion of a Mother in Heaven. More talk on our divine destiny to become gods. More talk about heavenly visitors and personal revelation. We have been playing it safe for a long time. Our greatest and most lasting growth happened when we were willing to push the theological envelope and risk being heretical.
Gilgamesh,
I’m not in favor of those kinds of Easter eggs unless there is real revelation behind it (but then, it wouldn’t be Easter eggs).
I was thinking about this again in context of Jana Riess’ latest article. A BIG Easter egg for the current leadership is doubling down on exclusive truth claims – to the point of revising the style guide to ask the media to refer to include truth claims in our preferred title! And yet… It’s not working because, at least if Riess is to be believed, that’s not the question the majority of people are asking. Most people outside the church (and, I think, an increasing number within) aren’t super concerned about belonging to The Only True Church On The Face Of The Earth, Cross My Heart And Hope To Die.
@Joni that’s a great example and I totally agree. People are interested in what’s useful — what helps them live a happier better life — not what’s “TRUE”. So that particular easter egg isn’t working. Indeed, I can’t think of an easter egg that’s worked of the many they’ve tried to stop the hemorrhaging the Church is experiencing among young people (and middle-aged and old people). But I can think of some that I think might work, based on *actual research* done of those groups! But they are all sacred cows.
@Wondering
“Yes. There were some who taught by (and before) 1968 that homosexuality was inborn. But it was not until 1973, did the American Psychiatric Association remove the pathological diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.”
1973 was only five years after 1968.
Meanwhile we are approaching **fifty** years since homosexuality has been removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. That has been more than enough time for us to form an inclusive, loving, and compassionate policy toward LGBT members of the church (one that does not require they spend their lives in mixed-orientation marriages or in loneliness).
It’s truly unfortunate that BYU psychologists were practicing conversion therapy in the late 1970’s. It’s time to right the wrongs we committed for too many years.
I can’t justify the church’s trusting of the BYU psychologists when homosexually had already been removed from the DSM. BYU psychologists, as licensed practitioners, had a professional obligation to practice according to the standard of care, and clearly did not. Any departure from the standard of care should be extremely rare, carefully thought out, and openly disclosed to any patients undergoing such care. Stories of the suicides from that era are heartbreaking (some are detailed in Carol Lynn Pearson’s book, “Goodbye, I Love You” published in 1986, over 30 years ago).
I appreciate hearing your views even when they differ from my own. You share thoughts I find interesting even when I disagree, so I hope I’ve disagreed agreeably enough and apologize if I haven’t.
madi, You’re right. The point of my comment is only that merely consulting a psychologist is not enough. The question was and, in some matters remains, which psychologist. It is not only psychologists. Competing “experts” can be found in many fields. I’m not sure whether you disagreed with anything I’ve said here.
But the DSM is not necessarily the last word on anything. The disputes on homosexuality within the community of trained psychologists existed before that change and continued to exist after the change. One clinical psychologist who participated in the committee that took out “homosexuality” as a pathological diagnosis told me that the decision was political. He may have meant “political” within the committee rather than what is commonly thought of as politics. (Others have published better justifications of the committee’s process than that.) “Political” or not, it’s a good thing that it’s out. But with the dispute among psychologists continuing for years after the removal of that diagnosis, the problem for the brethren in looking for an expert to trust (if they looked at all) remains a matter of making a decision between competing experts and their opinions. Clearly, “ask a psychologist” is historically not good enough. Not in the 40s – 70s at least as to homosexuality and not in the 80s and later as to “recovered memory” or as to the existence of such a thing as “multiple personalities” in one body, per the head of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins hospital in the early 90s.
As to the POX, I think Anna got it right the last time around — no need to consult a psychologist (or to pick your expert, though by 2015 it seems most “experts” were aligned as they were not in 1973), if there had only been some exercise of common sense. 🙂
Madi, those BYU psychologists undoubtedly believed they were heeding higher authority, and were combatting sin as well as pathology. “Sometimes,” Dr Freud once (perhaps apocryphally but still) stated, “a cigar is just a cigar.” Always good to keep in mind when dealing with Homo sapiens sapiens, especially when spoken by the Great Sleuth of the subconscious.
Some Easter eggs I’d like to see rolled out would be:
1. Give members permission to read and quote from modern translations of the Bible such as the NIV and the Amplified Bible so that they can actually understand what is being said. The English used in the King James Version was nearly 100 years old when it was used in that translation because much of it was based on William Tyndale’s translation from the early 1500’s. Most church members don’t know this fact. I’m a huge fan of Shakespeare, but it took some studying on my part to acquaint myself with his use of the language of the time before I could watch one of his plays and truly understand it. I also think that the Book of Mormon should be rendered in more modern and understandable English. Ditto for the Doctrine and Covenants. What good is it to have scriptures that many people don’t understand? I’m probably committing heresy by even mentioning such a shocking thing, but it’s very sad when the BoM is easier to read in a foreign language than it is in English. While I read several different translations of the Bible for my own study and edification I realize that many church members would actually feel like they needed express permission from the very top before they would be willing to take the leap even though the GAs are quoting from the NIV more and more in conference talks and Ensign articles.
2. Relief Society needs to be returned to the women exclusively. When the women ran the show we were much more effective in caring for the needs of the poor, sick, lonely, abused and others who were in need-and not just in our own wards. We were responsible for our own funds and didn’t have to grovel before a power hungry bishop (the result of leadership roulette) whose favorite word was “No”. Since 1995 when the RS was put under the Priesthood much of its effectiveness has been hamstrung by male leaders at all levels who want to make sure that the women “know their proper place” in the Church. If only we could regain the vision that Joseph Smith originally had for us. What the RS is now is certainly NOT even close to fulfilling his vision for the sisters. Sigh.
Titles are often meaningless. They are meant to both feed and soothe the ego.
The church loves titles and the church has many egos to feed and soothe. Aspiring to and obtaining titles is part of the game they offer.
Prophet, Seer, and Revelator are titles that exemplify this. Based on this discussion, and my experiences and observations, these lofty titles are empty. This is demonstrated time and time again through misguided counsel, pompous declarations of half-truths, and half-assed ideas/programs.
My questions:
Without prophecy and modern-day revelation, of what value is the church?
Doesn’t the fact that they rely on Easter egging prove that Christ is not at the head of this church?
Without Christ, prophecy, and revelation, why does anyone care to follow or even belong?
Concerning Anna’s assertion that there is “good evidence” that the Family Proclamation was written by lawyers for a case in Hawaii.
Not doubting, necessarily, but genuinely curious (I myself believe that that the Family Proclamation was written, in part to pre-emptively forestall political pressure against the Church on LGBT issues). Could anyone provide sources for Anna’s assertion? Where can the good evidence be located?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
@Taiwan Missionary, a lot of people have written/spoken about this. I don’t think Anna is suggesting (and I’m not aware) of like, some leaked internal document that says the proclamation was written for legal reasons, but the timing of the proclamation & the way it was put to use, as well as some of the things that even Oaks has said about it, leave little doubt in my mind that it was expressly drafted to give the Church standing in legal battles about gay marriage.
One description is here:
https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/
The best description of its history that I’ve heard is from Radio Free Mormon, but that’s not for the faint of heart.
TW, See also pp. 52-54 of Greg Prince’s “Gay Rights and the Mormon Church” for a description of evidence as to who wrote the 1995 Proclamation and its purpose. (Of course, Packer’s cited comments do not actually preclude the existence of ghost writers, whether lawyers or not.) At the very least DHO, a lawyer, was involved as one of the apostles in the writing as he had previously written memoranda for the church on the subject of gay marriage. Prince mentions that the Proclamation was too late to be employed in the church’s motion to intervene in the first Hawaii case on gay marriage which was denied by the Hawaii court. But it was used in the church’s briefing in the later Hawaii case in April 1997. According to Packer, there was a 1994 impetus for such a proclamation other than the initial Hawaii case. I suspect that was, at best, in addition to the initial Hawaii case. Ballard made it clear that it was connected to the growing popularity of the idea of legalizing gay marriage.
Elisa and Wondering:
Thanks for the prompt replies. I shall read them with interest.
Taiwan Missionary
One of my (least) favorites was a couple of years ago when one Sunday each month in EQ and RS was supposed to be a council session rather than a lesson. I think the 2-hour block made it a moot point, but I can’t believe it wouldn’t have died off soon anyway. I don’t think it worked well at all. And why try it if the 2- hour block was right around the corner?
@wondering I had wondered if Prince had addressed this as well but couldn’t find a reference. Thank you!
TC:
My answers:
Without prophecy and modern-day revelation, of what value is the church? *** It is still of spiritual, moral, aesthetic, intellectual, theological, and pecuniary ($$$$$$) value. So what if it can’t predict the future very well or read the mind of God like a children’s book? God’s mind ain’t *even* a children’s book – it’s Dostoevsky raised to a power of James Joyce! Haven’t we been expecting too much? The Church has “inspiration,” even if not direct revelation or prophecy. These things are also true of Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so many other religious traditions that don’t have (or even claim) direct revelation. More than 80% of the world’s population is religious. Religion is of great value, in all its various forms. I like this one.
Doesn’t the fact that they rely on Easter egging prove that Christ is not at the head of this church? *** No. They are men. And biased. They see through a glass darkly. Christ is no less at the head of his Church today than he was during Mountain Meadows, or during all the Old Testament genocides. Of course, if you mean “does Christ *control* the church?”, obviously not (see preceding examples). He never has, and never will, because he lets us choose. Some (much?) of the time, we choose to Easter egg.
Without Christ, prophecy, and revelation, why does anyone care to follow or even belong? *** See answers 1 & 2. Because deep down, our doctrine and culture speak to my soul. I believe and I am richer for it. In the cafeteria line of Mormonism, I’ve learned to pass on the jello and tots from the prime rib. It’s d#*n good and worth it.
I love the idea of easter-egging, but I don’t think that’s really what’s at play in Church leadership, at least not on the whole. Easter-egging as you describe it feels more dynamic and creative than the process we seem to follow. It seems to me that if you’re an apostle, your job is to wait until enough guys senior to you die off so you can FINALLY do all those things you’ve wanted to do and been talking about in general conference for decades. Until it’s your turn, you have to sit quietly and vote yes along with the rest of the quorum to whatever the top guy wants because it’s his turn. (Boasting that unanimity is required / how the quorum functions is not actually good from an organizational dynamics perspective and leads to apathy, inertia, and well…this). If I’m right, then what may look like easter egging is often just a case of solving problems that were perceived in the 90s or earlier to be problems and what that individual wanted to do to solve it, but couldn’t, because he wasn’t the top guy yet.
“at least not on the whole” is an important qualification. Over the years, I think I’ve seen both what Angela describes and easter-egging happen, as do discussion and consideration of varied ideas in the Q15. In what balance they happen varies with who is the “top guy” at the time.
Maybe part of the purpose of mortality it to easter egg it out… And the Church is not exempt from that.
@jpv. Your comment reminded me of an essay published in Interpreter by Duane Boyce (https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/yes-its-true-but-i-dont-think-they-like-to-hear-it-quite-that-way-what-spencer-w-kimball-told-elaine-cannon/ ). In the comment string, I made a comment that resulted in a few others providing a similar explanation — perhaps God lets the Church and its leaders “easter egg it out” on many issues. While I am mostly comfortable with the idea that God intends for the Church to muddle along as best it can, I would pose the question that I posed in the other comment string — are Church leaders aware when God is letting them muddle along or not? Brother Boyce claimed in his essay that Pres. Kimball was confident in his ability to discern the will of God and accurately communicate that will to Church members. If God intends us to muddle along as best we can, it seems that the process includes thinking we are more certain that we really are about what is God’s will. How many of the problems of Easter egging in the Church, as the OP points out, stem more from the “certainty” that we know what God wants? How many of these issues would be less problematic if we were better at recognizing when we are just muddling along?