The Singing Has Ended

I’m not I understand the point you’re trying to make, nor the question that you are asking.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that this announcement is some kind of tragedy.

Everything that I’ve seen coming from leadership training at the stake level is geared towards a greater simplification. From the top on down, the Church is reducing or elimination everything that doesn’t seem “essential.”

You will note that we are still having stake priesthood meetings, which I would argue are probably more important and vital for the immediate needs of priesthood bearers.

Of course, I recognize that we live in dark times. I acknowledge that. But I can’t agree with the idea that priesthood is being withdrawn from the world because we are reducing a general conference session. How many temples are being constructed right now? Seems to me the priesthood is advancing, not dwindling.

Please forgive various spelling errors. I apologize.

Spelling errors forgiven, and differing opinion received.

Before the stake center satellite receivers, about one and a half conference sessions would be broadcast on some TV station in Las Vegas. One Conference Saturday morning I was even in the St. George temple with the youth from my ward. Another Nevadan, from Carson City, told me his parents for Conference weekends would drive east until around Ely they were within range of KSL. They would check into a motel and watch Conference on TV.

Saturdays at 6 PM (7 PM Mountain Time), though, the priesthood would gather in the stake center, and a long distance phone call would be patched into the chapel’s sound. So, it was the one session of General Conference reliably available. That changed 40 years ago, then changed again about 15 years ago with internet streaming into the home.

When we take a step back and see what the Church has jettisoned over the last several years, it is rather breathtaking:

1. Three hour church block.
2. Home teaching (at least the contrived version, with reporting and guilt trips.)
3. Support and affiliation with the Boy Scouts (I think even Ezra Taft Benson would agree that it was time, the world being what it is.)
4. Not letting single or divorced members serve in presidencies (bishop and stake presidents excepted.)
5. I’m sure I’m missing something.

So, the Church has been changing at light speed, with many of the changes pre-dating Pres. Nelson but most of them accelerating after he become prophet.

Some of the things we’ve embraced:

1. Home-centered, church-supported program and worship services.

Elder Bednar is the apostle with oversight over the North America South East region…and he’s been hammering this theme. We need to be “at church” in our homes. This needs to be second nature to us. My speculation is that world conditions will continue to degenerate and thus make it difficult to gather as often. To hear Elder Bednar emphasize things, if it doesn’t fall into “home-centered, church -supported” then it’s not going to be something that the Church is going to be doing institutionally.

We do, in fact, live in interesting times. My personal speculation: there will be more changes coming. Considering with Elder Bednar stands with seniority and the actuarial tables, his viewpoint and take on things will continue for at least a couple more decades (or more.)

Of course, I recognize that it’s hard to let some things go. Not only recognize, but empathize.

Michael Towns, I am glad you value your stake priesthood meetings and haven’t had them taken away (yet). A month after I moved into my present stake 12 years ago, my second son was ordained to the Aaronic priesthood. After about five years, it dawned on me that he and his younger brothers had never attended a stake priesthood meeting with me because our stake didn’t hold them. I asked long-time members of the stake about this, and many had no idea about this “stake priesthood meeting” I was asking about. One bishopric counselor was aghast at the idea of such a meeting, and is probably happy about the end of General Priesthood Meeting. As my mystification grew, it happenned that the stake president attended our ward sacrament meeting with no special purpose, and afterward I was able to ask him about this. He also had no concept of “stake priesthood meeting” even though it is the first meeting listed in the handbook’s table of stake meeting. He thought I was talking about stake priesthood leadership meeting (which no longer exists, some of that withdrawal).

At that time three of my stake’s previous presidents were serving as Area Seventies, that corps of former stake presidents that go around teaching the current stake leaders how things are done, so it was starting to seem that maybe that is how things are done now.

When a new stake president was called, I wrote him about stake priesthood meetings, and he was receptive. He assembled a stake priesthood meeting, the first one in our stake in decades. One nice little memory is that two of the previous stake presidents came in together and sat next to me on the side bench I shared with two of my sons. (My second and third sons were away on missions.)

That stake president tragically died some months later, and his successor has held one stake priesthood meeting, so that is two for me in the last twelve years.

I’m really shocked. I have stake priesthood meeting this next Sunday at 6 pm. I’m really looking forward to it.

We’re a medium sized stake in Georgia. We have a very inspired stake president. We typically have a stake priesthood meeting twice a year (which I thought was standard throughout North America, at least.)

Maybe more of us just need to be vocal about *wanting* to gather as bearers of the priesthood. Generally speaking, those of us who are active down here in the South are pretty devout about our meetings. I can’t, of course, speak for other parts of the country.

I’m really looking forward to this meeting because it’s the first one I’ll attend with my son, who was ordained a deacon in January.

>What would a dwindling, a withdrawal of priesthood from the world and the church look like that is different from the ministry of Russell Nelson as president of the church?

Yes, I am sorry to say that in my mind this is the correct interpretation.

There are many “and yet”‘s, though: withdrawal as in a fast? I can’t help but think there’s a conservation law at work here—-there must be more solitary pondering going on in some places than there was fifty years ago.

Similarly, it may not be a coincidence that, at the very time all societal institutions seem increasingly toxic and compromised, that the Church steps back from institutional life.

I do not know. I only know that I agree with JM’s appraisal (withdrawal, possibly for iniquity), yet don’t find myself troubled. The Lord has all in hand.

I just noticed the photo the church newsroom included with the First Presidency’s announcement, and included it above. Sunset over the Conference Center. Many possible connections. The time of day when General Priesthood Meetings were held. The end of something. The last light before the night.

I am still interested in anyone’s take on my first question. One possible interpretation, probably not the one intended, is that the “all sessions” available to those who desire “to watch and listen” are the archive of past decades stored up for this time when the church leaders will no longer address the priesthood as a church-wide body.

Are you all forgetting the stink some (stupid) LDS feminists made about getting admitted to the General Priesthood session? So now the First Presidency is acknowledging that there isn’t anything said in those “special” sessions that everybody can’t hear.
I agree with the idea of simplification mentioned. Pres. Nelson is a surgeon who looks at everything and asks, “Is this necessary to the completion of our mission?” Some meetings are just nice to have, but not necessary. Also, lets give the seniors in the First Pres. a break. Yes, we love to hear from them! But it is taxing to have to write so many talks. And that time that could probably be better spent ministering and administering in many other ways.

I was also a bit sad about that announcement, but agree with Rozy: it’s got to be incredibly taxing for the leadership to write and deliver so many talks.
I also think that the Church is putting the responsibility for our spiritual lives squarely back where it belongs: on us, individually; as families; and as communities.
@ SPDI,
Perhaps. Or maybe this is like the winnowing that so many of the early church leaders experienced. More accurately, like pruning (the previous adjustments), then thinning out fruit on fruit trees. To get a really good peach, you have to be brutal about thinning (on my mind since that’s what I was doing this morning).
To withdraw, or even to retreat, is not necessarily bad tactics. I think you’re on the right track with the idea of fasting. It has been made abundantly clear this past year that going without helps us appreciate opportunities when we have them. But also, there’s been so many different opportunities to listen that are not General Conference – Face to Faces for various age groups, devotionals, etc. I wonder if they are simply tailoring messages to the groups that need to hear them, which they can’t do so much when speaking to the general church.

I’m missing something.

There are still approximately 7 hours per General conference (1.75 hours each session times 4 sessions), times twice a year, in which to deliver the messages.

There are still approximately 2.5 hours per Stake Conference (Saturday session plus Sunday session) times twice a year.

There are still 10 non-conference issues of the Liahona magazine in which to deliver messages.

There are still Area/Region special broadcasts.

—-

There’s another angle I’ll explore in another comment.

Conference used to be a week-long affair. Just before I was born, President Kimball eliminated the two general Friday sessions (or whichever weekday April 6 might happen to fall on in a given year), and the welfare session was discontinued in 1982. So this kind of reduction in conference programming isn’t unprecedented.

I do like having sessions where speakers can tune their talks toward particular audiences; I have fond memories of getting to attend priesthood session in the tabernacle with my dad whenever one of his sons reached deacon age, and I’m glad I got to take my son to the Conference Center when he became a deacon for priesthood session. I recall President Nelson mentioning some of his priesthood session family traditions (in the April 1999 conference).

All that being said, most faithful members are tuning in to all the conference sessions anyway. On my mission, none of the women who came to our meetinghouse to watch conference left to do other things when the priesthood sessions started (including the sister missionaries). In my ward, both the elder’s quorum and the Relief Society will teach lessons from conference talks without regard for whether their demographic was the target audience. So if everyone is studying all the sessions anyway, whether they’re women looking at the priesthood session, or men looking at the women’s session, it might as well be a general session. Plus, correct principles are just as true for one sex as they are for the other.

I liked having those more specialized sessions myself. But I don’t think discontinuing them is a sign that the sky is falling or that the Church’s leaders are losing their way. The biggest loss is not hearing each member of the First Presidency all speaking in the same session.

If, in a coming decade, it should be decided that since women perform many great roles (wife, mother, missionary, temple worker) without holding priesthood office, there is really no reason for most men to be ordained priests or elders, people will wonder then why I should care, and think my feelings of loss are nothing more than sentimental attachment to old-timey window dressing and scaffolding. I’m getting pretty used to that response.

And now I am remembering a Spalding Gray monologue in the David Byrne movie True Stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvU10OzGDv4

“I know what I’ll do. I’ll make some people that like it this way.”

@JM,

when they first switched to doing priesthood session digitally so everyone could watch I said that made it something that wasn’t special for men anymore. They guys I said it to thought I was crazy. They skies aren’t falling, etc. And they weren’t falling, and still aren’t.

But here we are, and the Church is getting rid of priesthood session because apparently everyone’s been watching it.

Though I doubt we will get as many talks focused on men or on women as before, and that is a real loss. The world is moving towards deemphasizing gender, and it appears we are also.

I am disappointed, no doubt.

G. – Let’s be optimistic that there will be more regional meetings; and specific training meetings. I know it’s hard to see things we love go the way of all the earth. I’ve seen plenty of changes in my 63 years–in church organization, in the temple, in missionary work, etc. And I know there were changes in my mother’s life time, and in her mother’s. I think it’s part of the globalization, hence simplification, of the administration of the church. The doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ haven’t changed, jus the way they’re taught and administered. We live in exciting times! Think of the coming uproar when the church headquarters moves to Missouri! No doubt there will be some pearl clutching then.

This helped me see Russell M. Nelson in a somewhat more sympathetic light.

https://narrowdesert.blogspot.com/2021/06/mormon-recessional.html

My personal opinion–happy to have folks disagree with me–is that even if we strongly believe something awesome is coming that is going to replace what we are losing, this announcement is not the awesome thing that is coming. It is one of the things we are losing and part of a trend of certain kinds of loss. It is OK to feel sad and disappointed and grief about it. To me, the comments about how ‘this is good actually’ feel a little forced and remind me of the old trend at LDS funerals–thankfully dying–that we were supposed to all be happy and excited and not sad because the deceased had gone to a much better place.

The gospel is deeply tragic, it requires that bad things happen, it says that bad things happening are inevitable, but we mostly seem to want to deny that.

I take strong exception to William James Tychonievich’s characterization of my comments that he wrote about on his blog page.

Yes, we can mourn the changing of traditions and patterns. But his and Charlton’s, and to a lesser extend, G.’s and Mansfield’s assumption that this is a defeat is beyond bizarre to me. I just don’t get it.

Tychonievich indulges in the idea that my comments veer into “the CJCLDS is still the Fastest Growing Religion and that The State of the Union Is Strong” delusion. Nowhere do I indulge in that, and never have I indulged in that fantasy. So his statement on his blog was lazy.

I’ve never entertained the notion that the Church’s growth rates are always destined to go up. They’ve been trending down for the past decade and a half, and I’m well aware of the numbers.

My “optimism” isn’t “forced” just because you don’t happen to share my view that this is not the apocalypse or a harbinger of immediate concern.

Russell M. Nelson is using his surgeon’s scalpel to cut away things that are not “essential.” The real question: Why is he doing this? I have my theories and suppositions.

@Michael

Noted and fixed.

@WJT, thanks for the correction.

@michael, you need to do a little correcting yourself. Where did I describe it as a defeat? I don’t really believe that you find our view that priesthood broadcast was a good thing and therefore getting rid of it is sad as so incomprehensible as to be ‘beyond bizarre.’ but if you are really that completely lost in this conversation you should not be participating in it.

Hi guys, I’ve not been to this blog in ages. Glad to see it’s still up and running. I don’t think the priesthood is being withdrawn or that the blessings of the gospel are shrinking. I think we live in different times and as things change and the needs of the church change, we will do things differently. One day a few months back I was reading thru some family history and noticed a picture of my Grandma, Great-Gran, all of her daughters/daughters-in-law taken about the late 1950s, with the caption that said something about how all of them were “Golden Gleaners” I knew that had been a program in the church, but I didn’t know what it was, so I did a bit of googling and found out. At first I was a bit sad the program had been discontinued — it was sort of an extention of the MIA program for young adults/young married women. But when I really thought about it, everything you were doing in Golden Gleaners they do in the Young Women’s program now. As I thought about why there was a shift, I realized that the world we’re in now is much different than 1958, our kids have more demands on them at an earlier age, so we have to prepare them earlier. If we still had Golden Gleaners in this past form our kids would be woefully unprepared for the things they face.

And I won’t lie, the speed and volume of changes made since Pres Nelson took the helm have felt overwhelming (and TBH, Covid has been a nice break to catch up), but I can see the value in many of these changes after this Covid year we’ve spent.

Michael, to help you and others understand my view better, if the other eight hours of General Conference had been reduced to two and the General Priesthood Meeting cut to one hour, then I would not have written what I did yesterday. That you and those younger than you now view the priesthood as another not-altogether-essential organization within the church is part of its withdrawal.

Joyce Anderson, what led you to this site today?

JM: “That you and those younger than you now view the priesthood as another not-altogether-essential organization within the church is part of its withdrawal.”

Priesthood session is not the Priesthood. It is not even the best setting to teach Priesthood. The PH session was indeed scaffolding, a help, which we erroneously came to believe was part of the thing itself.

That is likely why we had it taken away. We relied too much on “church” to teach the youth and converts, when every one of us should have been doing more to teach by word and by example, at all times and at all places, a la Leviticus.

We went so far as to over-rely on conferences, classes and firesides to teach Priesthood to youth and converts, when we should have taught them more by example, by _doing_ Priesthood everywhere, not just in the home and in the chapels, and in the temples.

Neither attending, nor speaking at PH session is “doing” Priesthood.

People best learn by example. If we want Priesthood behavior in youth and
converts, then we need to model that behavior. Let them see, witness, participate to the degree they can, and provide them opportunity to be taught from on high, in the moment, by the outpouring of the Spirit.

This is all part of “Raise the bar” of 2002. Just a continuation.

This is another step in the Lord telling us: “Start teaching your kids and converts the gospel seriously, and by example, one on one, and stop abdicating that responsibilty to the organizational church. Here, I’ll help you get started.”

By taking away our crutches, the Lord is telling us to do more ourselves.

—

This big a change doesn’t come without the Lord’s direction to do so. For anyone who believes in the Restoration, this _has_ to be according to the will and mind of the Lord. His actions are always for our long term benefit. We either “deserve” it or we _need_ it. Either way, we all _will_ benefit, somehow, from this change.

My 2c.

I’ve never felt lonelier than when in church, especially in person priesthood meetings. The only consistent exceptions were as a missionary, and my small singles ward. I think for me, with my peculiar mix of introversion, anti-sociality, and personality faults, the church is a kind of uncanny valley of fellowship – enough to excite hopes only to cruelly dash them.

When they switched to streaming priesthood, we were encouraged to still go to the chapel broadcast. Encouraged is not the same as required. I opted to stay home. I don’t have the stomach to play russian roulette with absolute soul crushing feelings of loneliness. Streaming is much better.

Now there is no reason the church should organize itself to cater to my own quirks and flaws. You tell me something grand is passing. I’ll take your word for it. But I don’t feel to mourn.

That said, I don’t see Bruce Charlton’s patchwork of like minded Christian romantics as being any kind of true fellowship or better or even anywhere near as good as what church is supposed to be. It is a stopgap at best. Which is to say it is much better than nothing. So let me close by offering my gratitude to him for maintaining his site, as well as for those who run this site, and others like it.

Bookslinger, a body that never assembles doesn’t really exist, and its members are not “members” of any whole. Talks and lessons that may be given while that body is assembled are a side benefit.

JM: You’re thinking too small.

1. As long as you have boys at home, the priesthood assembles twice every day. Morning and evening prayer. You preside over that assembly, and therein is an example of exercising your priesthood.

2. The Priesthood assembles every sacrament meeting, though not an exclusive assembly. Sacrament is the obvious exercise of priesthood. Other exercises of priesthood may not be obvious.

3. The ward priesthood assembles at the chapel for a ward quorum meeting twice a month.

4. Priesthood leadership, ward and stake, usually assembles for a session of stake conference.

5. As MT mentioned, some stakes still have a regular (semi-annual?) assembly of exclusvely the priesthood holders, presided over by the stake pres.

—

As an individual, you are subject to be directed by the Spirit, at any time, and at any place, (and that includes gas stations, bus stops, restaurants, grocery stores and laundromats, I’ve come to find out) to act as an agent of the Lord, IE, to exercise your Priesthood, to say and do what He would have you say and do. That’s wide open as to possibilities. In these instances, hopefully another member, such as a child, or any member, is accompanying you and can be there to witness and be taught/edified by the example of your words and actions.

This is true: Every time you go someplace, by plane, train, boat, car, bike, or on foot, you are subject to being called upon to act as an agent of the Lord. You were literally ordained to the Priesthood to do that. Sometimes, the “assembly” is just you, the Lord and the Holy Ghost.

—

The publicly stated reason for this conference change is true. But it’s not exhaustive. IE, there are other reasons being left unsaid. I think this is a case where the Lord is sparing us from some hard-to-swallow or inconvenient/embarrassing facts.

We seem to be talking about two different things here. Here’s how I reconcile things:

In Dutch, the word priesthood is rendered with a gendered article (de priesterschap) or a neuter article (het priesterschap). When priesthood is gendered it refers to the people who hold priesthood offices, and when it’s neuter (not neutered!) it refers to priesthood power itself. So when people say theologically sloppy things like “dismiss the priesthood” I put my Dutch experience to work, and it all works out for me.

Where I wrote : We relied too much on “church” to teach the youth and converts, when every one of us should have been doing more to teach by word and by example, at all times and at all places, a la Leviticus.
—

I was actually thinking of Deuteronomy 6:6-9.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/deut/6?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/magazine/ensignlp.nfo:o:22d6.jpg

“That you and those younger than you now view the priesthood as another not-altogether-essential organization within the church is part of its withdrawal.”

And “… a body that never assembles doesn’t really exist, and its members are not ‘members’ of any whole.”

I just realized the essence of our differing viewpoints.

It is necessary that holders of The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God are to be “organized” so that all things may be done in order.

But Priesthood (the power of God delegated to man etc, etc.) is not an organization.

That power is not delegated to an organization. That authority/power is delegated on an individual basis.

The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood is on an individual basis: God and an individual man. (The pinnacle or second step of the Oath and Covenant is administered in the sealing ceremony, where it becomes 3-way between God, husband, and wife.)

One does not join the Priesthood as one joins the church or any other organization.

The “Power of God delegated to men to etc etc” has not changed.

The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood has not changed.

The “Duties and Blessings” of the Priesthood (hat tip to the book) has not changed.

The singing changed.

And a meeting was dropped.

Hallelujah. Blessed be the name of YHWH.

John, a friend sent me the link and asked me what I though.

I believe the priesthood was withdrawn from man and the authority which Jesus conferred to his apostles did not continue operating. Some of those apostles as heavenly messengers many centuries later conferred the authority which Jesus had given them to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and people could again hear the gospel preached by ordained messengers and receive ordinances of salvation and exaltation.

I believe that the disappearance of the priesthood was not due to the disappearance of every single individual who had received and would fulfill the priesthood covenant if allowed. For decades, I have wondered what it was like for those unable to pass the blessings of the priesthood and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ onto others, even their own posterity, because God did not allow them to. Twenty years ago, I did not think I would ever experience anything remotely similar. I do not believe there is any individual on earth today whose priesthood ordination is a strictly personal matter.

Bookslinger, I never said priesthood is an organization within the church. I am not the one equating the end of priesthood meeting with the end of welfare sessions or MIA balls.

“I believe the priesthood was withdrawn from man and the authority which Jesus conferred to his apostles did not continue operating.
…
I believe that the disappearance of the priesthood was not due to the disappearance of every single individual who had received and would fulfill the priesthood covenant if allowed. ”

Ok, now you’re talking about keys and apostolic/prophetic authority over the keys. Those haven’t changed either.

” I do not believe there is any individual on earth today whose priesthood ordination is a strictly personal matter.”

Non-sequitur. Ordination administers/bestows the Oath and Covenant, but is separate from the Oath and Covenant itself — and separate from magnifying the calling. Those are three different things.

To state another way, Ordination effectuates the Oath and Covenant — it is not the Oath and Covenant itself.

“Magnifying the calling” is then how the individual man keeps his covenant.

To state yet another way, the man being ordained is not making a covenant with the man ordaining him.

The priesthood holder doing the ordination is an officiator, not a participant in the covenant being administered. Perhaps as a sealer officiates in a marriage sealing, but does not participate in the marriage itself nor the covenants that the couple are entering into with the Lord and each other.

I forget my source for how the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood is between two parties, the Lord and the individual man. Either a conference talk or one of the Teachings of the Presidents series, or one of the older dedicated Priesthood manuals. Or maybe one of the “Duties and Blessings” manuals.

I sense your frustration. I feel for ya. I felt similar frustration at seeing how _messy_, disorganized, and inefficient the whole mission/missionary system
was back in the 80’s.

If 2002’s ” Raise the Bar” fixed it, it won’t be until about 2029, a full generation, when _their_ kids go on missions, and return, that we’ll see it if really worked.

And by saying “_messy_, disorganized, and inefficient”, I was being way too polite and understated.

—

“Bookslinger, I never said priesthood is an organization within the church.”

Sorry. I inferred it from “a body that never assembles doesn’t really exist, and its members are not ‘members’ of any whole.”

“I am not the one equating the end of priesthood meeting with the end of welfare sessions or MIA balls.”

Ok. But I think you should.

—

To pull back a little and look at this from 10,000 feet….

I think rank and file church members, as a whole, are off track. Not the Brethren, and not the GA’s. It’s not the Brethren’s fault, either. It’s my fault, and it’s your fault. We’re not fully/correctly implementing what the Brethren tell us.

The Lord and Pres Nelson and the Brethren are now “shaking the box” to rearrange things and wake us up.

You and I need to take the scriptures more literally, more seriously, and get ourselves back to a “New Testament Church” (Pres Nelson’s phrase. That’s a big clue to what the Lord is doing.)

What goes on at chapels should be only a tiny percent of religion. True religion should happen mainly in member homes, investigator homes, on the streets and sidewalks, on the highways and byways, and in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, and wherever people suffer.

A 3 hour block on Sunday wasn’t too much. But the reason for cutting it back was to awaken us to do more at home.

There’s nothing wrong with 1 or 2 priesthood sessions of general conference per year, but its removal is to awaken us to “do priesthood” in homes, on the streets, and in prisons, hospitals, and nursing homes.

All that may not be 100% accurate, but I think it’s at least partially true, or “directionally accurate” as some pundits are wont to say.

When the Lord commands his servants to hew down and cast into the fire, to gaze gleefully at the destruction and say “How neat!” is a strange response. The Lord himself sorrows that such is needed, and not because he lacks vision.

Bookslinger – Your comment “What goes on at chapels should be only a tiny percent of religion. True religion should happen mainly in member homes, investigator homes, on the streets and sidewalks, on the highways and byways, and in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, and wherever people suffer.” is spot on. The government lockdown in response to the pandemic caused me to examine why I was so mournful about the loss of church attendance and activities. I had to confront my faults and weaknesses; that I was substituting attendance for action. Instead of acting like a Christian 24/7 I was equating going to church or RS for being a Christian. Over the months of lockdown I’ve ramped up my ministering efforts, my personal scriptures study, and my personal prayers. Attending meetings is only one way to fill our vessels with oil to prepare to meet the bridegroom. We add much more oil through our private and personal activities.
“The Lord and Pres Nelson and the Brethren are now “shaking the box” to rearrange things and wake us up.” YES! The sifting is becoming more apparent and open. What was it Pres. Nelson said about taking our vitamins, etc. that there would be more changes coming?

Whoa. We have yet to see hewing, burning, and destruction in our lifetime. Dropping a few of many meetings from the line-up is merely “shaking the box” to wake us up and get our attention, to crystalize our focus, to pull us away from thinking Priesthood and gospel-living is about fried-froth and warm fuzzies while sitting in a meeting.

I am seeing through a glass darkly here, and this is not 100% accurate, but again, this has some “directional truth” to it….

I believe/feel/sense the Lord is saying something like:

“Stop spending so much time at the chapels. Step away from your TV and computer screens more. Put down your cursed phones. Spend more time with your family and other people, teaching and leading them by example. And get out, get on the highways and byways, and go places and do what I and my apostles did. Don’t just believe the scriptures, live them. You want more meetings? Then start doing what I told you in previous meetings — then I’ll give you more meetings. How do you think I feel when I talk and hardly anyone does what I say?

In fact, those dropped meetings were mostly for the new and the weak. I needed you there in those meetings mainly to hold their hands. But I am now bringing in fewer precious lambs (converts) because the shepherds, “the strength of my house”, are not up to snuff. So here’s a little retrenchment, a wake-up call, to get you guys moving.

For you older and stronger ones, “the strength of my house,” I have individualized instructions and some specific ad-hoc assignments which I have been trying to communicate to you via my Spirit, but your focus is in the wrong places. Sanctify yourselves and take the Spirit as your guide, and you will see the miracles of old return. I haven’t changed.”

That’s what I think the Lord has been saying the last two to three years.

That said… I’m part of the problem. Mea maxima culpa.

I don’t like the extent to which some here are echoing the post-Mormon scripts about how leaving the church frees them to do good at last.

Jacob G., if you are still reading, I have been thinking about your above comment since yesterday. Thank you for contributing it.

Among my quorum members, the number that became familiar fellows is much larger than the number of intimate friends. With that larger group it has been a good thing for me to be with them week after week, year after year as they bit-by-bit become known to some degree. Some quorums more explicitly set out to do this than others. One of the best at this, at my first quorum meeting, the president before the quorum said addressing me, “Don’t buy any tools. Anything you need someone here has already.” A month later I tested that, asking in quorum meeting if anyone had a router, and a couple men offered theirs. Another quorum member spent an evening with me hanging a sheetrock ceiling, as if he were my brother-in-law.

Some settings don’t work for some, leaving them feeling isolated in a crowd. For myself, the accumulation of interactions add up to something, sometimes slowly, and I would be poorer without them.

JM, I’m reading.

@ JM,
I get what you’re saying. I also think that a church community is important. But we have to make some individual effort to build those communities.

I’m not good at this; I’m very much an introvert. But I really try to get to know at least a few people in my very transient, high-turnover ward. I try to make myself available to serve outside of church hours. And I try to go to all the meetings my introverted self can handle. This makes for long, non-restful Sundays.

I really will miss the targeted sessions of General Conference. They gave me assurance and guidance that I needed. But I suspect that there will be more of that at the local level, targeted to local needs. In my view the Church seems to be trying to create thicker localized communities centered around closer temples, but that takes time and dedicated effort.

It made me sad.

The church has had many changes over the years; the priesthood session is not written in the tablets of heaven. Far greater changes than this have occurred, and perhaps then the saints mourned their losses.

But a loss is still a loss, at the end of the day, and one may—even *should*—mourn it.

Well said

@ T. Greer,
Exactly what I was trying to say, in far less words than I said it. Thank you.