Comments on: The Fourth “Emphasis” Is Here

By: Martin Willey

Martin Willey — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:13:27 +0000

"for whom vicarious ordinances are performd

By: Martin Willey

Martin Willey — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:11:59 +0000

I wonder if the rewording, particularly of the first and fourth “emphases,” is not intended to clarify some things. First, to make clear that members are not expected be perfect in and of themselves, at least not as the term is understood in today’s (English) vernacular. Some in the Church feel too much pressure to reach an unrealistic standard of “perfection” as they understand it.

Second, to reiterate that those deceased persons for whom vicarious ordinances still have the agency to choose whether to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and the covenants associated with the ordinances. This seems to bear repetition among those offended by the presumption of our baptizing others against their will.

Also, what Paradox said in #2.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:56:32 +0000

Justin, thanks for the direct quote from DHO. That’s the comment I was trying to remember.

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:17:04 +0000

I’ve been and still am cheering for this. When news of this first came out I immediately took it to a Doctrine and Covenants class here at BYU-Hawaii where we were scheduled to discuss later sections dealing with the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. When I asked what the threefold mission of the Church was, students dutifully responded. I told them it was going to change. They looked puzzled and skeptical. I handed out a printout of what would change and be added. It was interesting to watch their faces as they read the short article. Most thought it made good sense. For many there was an immediate expression of hearty approval–this was a good thing. That’s heartening.

I understand Chris’s sentiment that we shouldn’t have to say this. But I think it is good to have it there as a stated purpose and a reminder of what we can’t get away from.

This has clearly been a concern since the early days of the restoration. And while we may have done better at some times than others, it’s also true, I think, that the size of the church and the relative prosperity of the members (some of the members) puts us in a position to do things on a larger scale than we’ve been able to do previously.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:41:37 +0000

Re 5, 8: Elder Oaks' comments are here.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:53:23 +0000

This new statement reminds me of our ward goals. Let me pull out a Sunday bulletin. Here they are:

Mission of the ___ Ward: * Build up Zion in our area as a safe haven in a spiritually turbulent world * Labor while the sun still shines to bring souls to Christ and gather in all who will heed the Lord’s call to come to Zion * Prepare all in our stewardship for the millennial reign of the Savior

I don’t have much to say about mission statements, besides the fact that I agree with Bruce on that point, but at least some former language was removed that said that we will “seek to grow the ward.” Eew.

By: Bruce Crow

Bruce Crow — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:56:00 +0000

I always thought the approach of having a mission statement looked more like a corporate sales team, than a church. In the 80s and 90s (and probably earlier) we had sound bites, day planners, and habits to make us highly effective. What did it get us? Lots of baptisms, but half the people in our ward never come to church. Now the slogans have been toned down. Why? Because the most lasting conversions come from people who have friends in the Church. It has little to do with sales technique. It has everything to do with friendship, love,and compassion.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:32:46 +0000

The other comment from the training was that we will return to the original intent: these are not, in fact, separate missions of the church — there is one mission: to help individuals and families qualify for exaltation. Everything else is a descriptor of how to do it.

The training discouraged dividing these up and seems to favor the more “balanced approach” (used in the late 90′s in a “training emphasis” that’s made its way around since then, and also highlighted in the new Handbook 2, as well.

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:32:05 +0000

The said thing for me is…why does any of this need to be in outlined in a mission statement or in the handbook? These things are what the scriptures are all about.

By: Sterling Fluharty

Sterling Fluharty — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:51:09 +0000

Thanks for making my day.