| Subject: | Hinckley targets mothers with "no farewells" policy |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:45 |
| Author: | Deconstructor |
| Mail Address: |
| Hickley Speaking: No one else in the Church has a farewell when entering a particular service. We never have a special farewell-type meeting for a newly called bishop, for a stake president, for a Relief Society president, for a General Authority, or anyone else of whom I can think. Why should we have missionary farewells? The First Presidency and the Twelve, after most prayerful and careful consideration, have reached the decision that the present program of missionary farewells should be modified. The departing missionary will be given opportunity to speak in a sacrament meeting for 15 or 20 minutes. But parents and siblings will not be invited to do so. There might be two or more departing missionaries who speak in the same service. The meeting will be entirely in the hands of the bishop and will not be arranged by the family. There will not be special music or anything of that kind. We know this will be a great disappointment to many families. Mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and friends have participated in the past. We ask that you accept this decision. Where a farewell has already been arranged, it may go forward. But none in the traditional sense should be planned for the future. We are convinced that when all aspects of the situation are considered, this is a wise decision. Please accept it, my dear brethren. I extend this plea also to the sisters, particularly the mothers. We hope also that holding elaborate open houses after the sacrament meeting at which the missionary speaks will not prevail. Members of the family may wish to get together. We have no objection to this. However, we ask that there be no public reception to which large numbers are invited. - Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2002 Priesthood Session See: http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-315-18,00.html |
| Subject: | Welcome back Decon. We missed your informative posts. n/t |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:48 |
| Author: | Cattle Mutilator |
| Mail Address: |
| Subject: | Re: Hinckley targets mothers with "no farewells" policy (language) |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:49 |
| Author: | Mook The Fist |
| Mail Address: |
| THEY'RE GOING AWAY FOR TWO YEARS YOU STUPID, FUCKING ASSHOLE! God, I'd love to take a bat to his head. |
| Subject: | One Word: CULT! (F-Bomb) |
| Date: | Oct 10 22:42 |
| Author: | Gail |
| Mail Address: |
| This will go a long way to hosing all PR efforts. Hell, the Protestants and Catholics have parties for THEIR missionaries. Big fun parties, even the Baptists. Stinckley must not have been a good PR weenie. Mormon insular thought will not go over well inside or outside the "Jello Belt!" And they wonder why so many folks think of them as "That Fucking Cult!" |
| Subject: | Re: Hinckley targets mothers with "no farewells" policy |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:49 |
| Author: | estebanito |
| Mail Address: |
| How nice. Remove the human aspect as soon as possible! You are a DRONE! Get freakin' used to it, now! Be prepared to give your "numbers", that's what we want... |
| Subject: | Maybe I missed something |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:50 |
| Author: | LauraD. |
| but what exactly is the point of not having farewells? |
| Subject: | Hinckley says there are too many farewells... |
| Date: | Oct 10 19:07 |
| Author: | Deconstructor |
| Here's Hinckley's explanation of the ban on farewells and
homecomings: "Now we have an interesting custom in the Church. Departing missionaries are accorded a farewell. In some wards this has become a problem. Between outgoing missionaries and returning missionaries, most sacrament meetings are devoted to farewells and homecomings." |
| Subject: | Oh, I see |
| Date: | Oct 10 19:08 |
| Author: | LauraD. |
| so they want sacrament meeting to focus on the more important things like Joseph Smith, I mean Jesus Christ. |
| Subject: | Re: Hinckley says there are too many farewells... |
| Date: | Oct 10 21:54 |
| Author: | Nightingale |
| OK, well at least he gives a reason - which we can now pick apart,
because it's still stupid. Why can't they say that the time spent in SMs for farewells has
to be cut down - that would at least be partially understandable if you look at it from
their viewpoint. Our ward didn't have a large contingent of leaving and returning
missionaries, so it just wasn't a problem and there must be many wards where this is the
case, which makes this new rule even more incomprehensible. In wards with many farewells and homecomings, maybe they could do one SM a month for leaving and one for returning and do several mishies at the same time, even if they had to cut the speaking time down. Or something else that's a compromise, rather than cut it out altogether, even in areas where there isn't even a problem with it, time-wise. Oh well, maybe it'll show the poor prospective mishies how grim mission life can be, starting with before you even leave for the MTC. And yeah, what LauraD said: is there something more important they need to fill SM up with? And here's a revolutionary thought: why don't they have fewer Fast and Phony Testimony meetings - that would free up plenty of time to fit in more family-oriented content, like say, a farewell or two... |
| Subject: | Uniformity is critical. The COJCOLDS is like McDonalds. |
| Date: | Oct 10 22:03 |
| Author: | Shake Me |
| They want customers to know that everywhere they go, their Big Macs
will be of uniform flavor and consistency. The Brethren want to make sure that all of
their outlets are following strict guidelines from headquarters, so that the SMs all have
the same, reliable look and feel. Local innovation destroys the brand value. It would be
like letting local McDonalds outlets have different menu choices to suit local tastes. It
could be better, but it wouldn't be McDonalds. One size fits all. That's the revelation that keeps popping up in the heads of the inspired brethren. |
| Subject: | Hinckley is getting senile.... |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:52 |
| Author: | Aphrodite |
| "No one else in the Church has a farewell when entering a
particular service. We never have a special farewell-type meeting for a newly called
bishop, for a stake president, for a Relief Society president, for a General Authority, or
anyone else of whom I can think. Why should we have missionary farewells?" Um, Gordo, I've got news for you. They're not going anywhere. God, how stupid can this man be? Missionaries leave home to go on their missions, duh. Bishops, stake presidents, and RS presidents don't. My Lack of God, to think that this man is controlling a few million people and $30 billion in assets! If missionary farewells are so stupid and unnecessary, then why didn't the Morg leadership stop them from ever happening. Mormon leaders don't worry about theological revelations; they only receive revelation on what should happen next in Mormon culture: important things like no more double piercings or missionary farewells. |
| Subject: | This is just a hunch. What do you guys think? |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:52 |
| Author: | Carolsue |
| Now that doubting mormons are coming out more with their disbelief, could Hinckley be afraid that it may be all too easy for one or more to open up with their feelings and research in this more casual setting, where they aren't being watched so closely. This could have the potential of causing many more closet doubters take the step to leave, too. |
| Subject: | This smacks of a Communist rule of no large congregations in people's homes. nt |
| Date: | Oct 10 18:59 |
| Author: | Carolsue |
| Subject: | This smacks of Boyd K. Packer |
| Date: | Oct 10 19:08 |
| Author: | The_Magus |
| Mail Address: |
| who said that at funerals, the deceased was not to be spoken about
and the funeral talks should all be on the gospel. He even threatened (clearly a joke)
that if he was mentioned at his own funeral, he'd rise up from his coffin to stop the
proceedings. The Magus |
| Subject: | The sick part is.. |
| Date: | Oct 10 19:11 |
| Author: | Deconstructor |
| Mail Address: |
| The sick part about the new policy is that church leaders think they
can dictate what people do in their own homes. If church leaders really think there are too many farwells and homecomings, it's likely they want the open houses to stop so ward members don't miss their church meetings to attend. Just more evidence that the Mormon church isn't about people. |
| Subject: | It's good and bad |
| Date: | Oct 10 19:15 |
| Author: | Nightingale |
| It's good that the astronomical exercise of total control is
becoming so obvious. It's bad that so many will continue to accept it and their lives will
be negatively influenced. Hinckley says: The meeting will be entirely in the hands of the bishop and will not be arranged by the family. There will not be special music or anything of that kind. More evidence that the church is all business and no heart. Expressing feelings through music, like playing a family's favourite song at a farewell, is a meaningful and human thing to do. It's a way that people show LOVE. What if the mish never comes home? At least you'd have the memory of the meaningful farewell. The Mormon Prophet speaks: Members of the family may wish to get together. We have no objection to this. You have GOT to be kidding me that he actually made this statement. THE CHURCH has to tell you whether it's OK for a family to get together or not? What a relief that they "have no objection". What RIGHT do they have to OBJECT in the first place????? And yeah, what Aphrodite said: Mormon leaders don't worry about theological revelations; they only receive revelation on what should happen next in Mormon culture: important things like no more double piercings or missionary farewells. The leaders can make themselves look so busy dealing with all this minutiae - do they EVER actually give advice or assistance that is meaningful to someone's life? Do they ever actually HELP with life's problems? Or is it just pay and obey, praying optional? I'd be interested in people's opinions about what could have precipitated this ruling. Tell me again? They took apart the entire church and put it back together again and the major thing they came up with that needed "fixing" was to "modify" farewells? Puh..leeze...what about modifying entrenched lying throughout the entire institution? What about modifying the entire missionary program - to make it actually relevant to the mishies, their families and maybe even to converts? What about modifying how they interfere in people's marriages, causing so much unnecessary strife? You know, just when you think you're used to it, they can make you ANGRY again. They are ludicrous. They are appalling. They worry about your underwear and your ear piercing and what music you play and how many people a family can invite to say farewell to a sacrificial lamb. But with POLYGAMY they have nothing to say? Oh, excuse me, Hinckley did say something, "That's behind us". Yeah, well tell it to the women and children in the colonies. They might disagree, except disagreement is not allowed either. This is a shouting thing. This is a swearing thing. |
| Subject: | "Members of the family may wish to get together. We have no objection to this." |
| Date: | Oct 10 19:39 |
| Author: | Shake Me |
| Mail Address: |
| What a presumptious old fart! It sounds completely like he's
magnanimously authorizing families to get together, if they want to, in order to say
good-bye to a kid whose going to spend two years irritating strangers with stupid
conversion efforts on behalf of the Morg. How nice of the Brethren to give their
permission for families to get together "if they wish." The grand king and super
pooh bah Hinckley has spoken. So it is said, so it shall be done. What an arrogant jackass! |
| Subject: | the women are getting too uppity & planning too many good parties -time to shut them down |
| Date: | Oct 10 19:44 |
| Author: | SusieQ#1 |
| The Morg can't have the mothers doing anything that could take away
any of the "penishood" power you know. Slap those women back into line and do it quick before they think they are running the whole show!! |
| Subject: | Or the GAs are just jealous of the mishies and their fans.... |
| Date: | Oct 10 21:21 |
| Author: | Aphrodite |
| No one ever gives the GAs a farewell party with lots of teenage girls when THEY go somewhere to do work for the Lord. Maybe that's what Hinckley meant by his quote. |
| Subject: | Some thoughts, on the death of an institution... |
| Date: | Oct 10 20:20 |
| Author: | Colonel Thomas Kane |
| Deconstructor wrote: > Hickley Speaking: > > No one else in the Church has a farewell when entering a particular service. We never have a special farewell-type meeting for a newly called bishop, for a stake president, for a Relief Society president, for a General Authority, or anyone else of whom I can think. Why should we have missionary farewells? The Colonel replies: The culture does not inculcate all young men, and their families, with any goal other than missionary sevice; it is the pinnacle of their lives to date; this is a family, and community event, second only to marriage in importance. That the family is denied this small time to say, "farewell, for TWO YEARS (which, at eighteen, seems like forever) is the height of folly, and speaks volumes of the silence of the Church leadership to the needs of the members. GBH continued: > The First Presidency and the Twelve, after most prayerful and careful consideration, have reached the decision that the present program of missionary farewells should be modified. The Colonel replies: Translated: "all of this foolishness is getting in the way of business; it has to stop." GBH continued: > The departing missionary will be given opportunity to speak in a sacrament meeting for 15 or 20 minutes. But parents and siblings will not be invited to do so. There might be two or more departing missionaries who speak in the same service. The meeting will be entirely in the hands of the bishop and will not be arranged by the family. There will not be special music or anything of that kind. The Colonel replies: "....entirely in the hands of the bishop...." Says it all. THAT job just became a lot less inviting! One can imagine the EQ Preident and President of the Relief Society telling the bishop, "You know, if she and I can't have a few minutes to express our pride, well, that tithe might not be as full this year as last, and, well, you might start preparing now to call our replacements..." Bet on it. GBH continued: > We know this will be a great disappointment to many families. Mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and friends have participated in the past. We ask that you accept this decision. Where a farewell has already been arranged, it may go forward. But none in the traditional sense should be planned for the future. The Colonel replies: "... none in the traditional sense should be planned for the future." Well. So much for the bishop being in charge! GBH wrote: >We are convinced that when all aspects of the situation are considered, this is a wise decision. Please accept it, my dear brethren. I extend this plea also to the sisters, particularly the mothers. The Colonel replies: "Plea" seems to be spelled "O-R-D-E-R." GBH wrote: > We hope also that holding elaborate open houses after the sacrament meeting at which the missionary speaks will not prevail. The Colonel replies: What on Earth? Is it solely because these can run over a precious two or three minutes into the next ward's time for the hall? Is that it? GBH said: >Members of the family may wish to get together. We have no objection to this. The Colonel replies: This is a breathtaking statement; the FP does not object to members of the family getting together to celebrate their son's - or daughter's - missionary farewell. This is breathtaking audacity in action; the "family focused" Church ALLOWING its members to act as a family.... My God! They are more concerned about baptism for the dead families of others, than they are their own living families.... GBH wrote: >However, we ask that there be no public reception to which large numbers are invited. The Colonel replies: Translated, "there will be no public reception." Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2002 Priesthood Session The Colonel replies: This will drive women out of the Church like few things you can imagine; when Elaine Jack was trashcanned as RS President shortly after she (allegedly) referred to the missionaries as "our sons" to a member of the FP, the willful denial of the roles of women in the Church has grown to monstrous proportions. GBH could only have said this a Priesthood; if he had done it during the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference, the cameras at the Saturday Afternoon Session would look upon a LOT of empty seats... Outside, the cameras would have seen a lot of wives with frozen smiles saying to their husbands, through clenched teeth, "We will talk about this NOW, dear...." Best wishes. |
| Subject: | please educate me... |
| Date: | Oct 10 22:08 |
| Author: | jillian |
| "when Elaine Jack was trashcanned as RS President shortly after
she (allegedly) referred to the missionaries as "our sons" to a member of the
FP, the willful denial of the roles of women in the Church has grown to monstrous
proportions." What is the story on this? Sounds interesting. Thanks |
| Subject: | Re: Hinckley targets mothers with "no farewells" policy |
| Date: | Oct 10 20:26 |
| Author: | Bert |
| De-lurking: When my nephew went to on his mission several months ago, I of course attended his farewell. The Bishop instructed my Sister she couldn’t announce over the pulpit the “get- together” she planned after sacrament meeting. She got up, gave her talk, and about two minutes before she was done, she unrolled a banner and taped it to the pulpit that said “Get together for Elder Xxxxx at the Xxxxx home immediately after Sacrament meeting – See you there.” You bet those women need a reminder of their place. ;-) Resume lurk mode. |
| Subject: | That's hysterical Bert. |
| Date: | Oct 10 20:59 |
| Author: | TLC |
| I'm surprised they didn't initiate excommunication proceedings
against her. It appears your sister understands the meaning of the phrase, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." Beat 'em at their own game. Good for her! |
| Subject: | You know he's sort of wrong about the bishops |
| Date: | Oct 10 21:49 |
| Author: | I am someone |
| Every instance I can remember of a bishop being called consisted of a sacrament meeting with the old bishopric saying their farewells and the new bishopric saying their hellos. |
| Subject: | Hey, you're absolutely right . . . |
| Date: | Oct 11 00:46 |
| Author: | Anon |
| Maybe they'll soon announce that those "farewells" are banned too. (Maybe GBH is waiting on that one so that he'll have a new revelation to "wow" us with in his next Conference address.) |
| Subject: | Has anybody heard any reaction to this... |
| Date: | Oct 10 22:00 |
| Author: | TLC |
| ...from TBM's yet? It'll be interesting to see just how smoothly
this goes down with those who are really invested in the practice. Makes you wonder what it's going to finally take before the membership as a whole (hole?) finally rebels en masse and says, "We're madder than hell and we aren't going to take this anymore!" Something's gotta give somewhere. As much as we poke fun at and deride mormons, they're not a pack of uneducated idiots. I'm thinking of my brother the bishop in particular - a guy with a masters in civil engineering, a high paying job and a thoughtful, rational mind. How long before people like him just say no. This had gone too far. Surely there are TBMs starting to scratch their heads and wonder what the hell is going on up in the ivory tower. |
| Subject: | Re: Has anybody heard any reaction to this... |
| Date: | Oct 11 00:56 |
| Author: | LissetteSimone |
| Actually, I'm talking to my TBM friend about this. She says it was
"those utahns" and the no open house at a family members house was because
"they want the sabbath to remain holy, not social." Give me a break. |
| Subject: | mormonism = utah (screw the rest) |
| Date: | Oct 10 22:16 |
| Author: | dant |
| Just another example of how the powers-that-be examine a
predominately Utah problem (I am assuming) and come up with a completely insane blanket
solution. Their lack of cultural sensitivity and awareness of regional differences comes
to the fore once again. If the problem exists in Utah, then the solution applies worldwide. After all, Mormonism equals Utah. Never mind that the problem doesn't exist in many, many other parts of the world. They are obviously not that concerned with alienating many regional groupings of mormons. Just as long as those nice blonde, white-skinned Utah boys keep up the standard. Problem is (for the morg), Gordon B Hitler and his SS are going to alienate a lot of the aryans with this one. "It's only policy, not doctrine" will be the revolutionary war cry of the suppressed sisters. Sisters of the morg - unite! |
| Subject: | It's like funerals |
| Date: | Oct 10 22:21 |
| Author: | ruldx2 |
| It reminds my of the funeral policy that BKP tried to introduce,
about not letting it get too much about the deceased, and such sentimental recollections,
but keeping it on the gospel and using it as a faith-strengthening time. When "less-active" family members speak at farewells or funerals (when else would they get a chance to stand before the whole congregation and speak) the people get a chance to see and hear from someone who might just be a decent person, who still has feelings, who's a lot like them, but just doesn't buy the GA party line. Believers near the fringes might be affected. Bottom line: the GA's know exactly where the weak spots in their mind-control operation are: they don't want there to be opportunities for less actives or closet doubters to show the faithful that being a doubter isn't so bad or that skeptics can still enjoy life and have meaningful relationships. |
| Subject: | Perhaps they're trying to downplay the mission... |
| Date: | Oct 10 23:34 |
| Author: | Fly |
| ...as a rite of passage for LDS boys. No more big parties,
receptions, invitations. There will be fewer and fewer missionaries being sent--for
WHATEVER reason--and Hinckley is just trying to cushion the blow by removing the very
social/public celebration of a mission. "Please, moms, don't make such a big deal of your sons being worthy to serve, and serving worthily... shh... let's make this mission thing go away in about 15 years, okay?" So the family won't be asked to speak in sacrament meeting? Why not? Frankly, I would be embarrassed to be any other kind of speaker at a missionary farewell. Think about it. All of Elder Young's family has gathered to hear him speak, to say goodbye as he serves for 2 years in Bohemia, and YOU'RE the poor shmuck the bishop asked to speak for 12 minutes on the importance of the Ensign the same day...ugh. As far as "too many farewells" etc. being a problem, I'll say that Hinckley is lying on that count. I NEVER heard any complaints about "too many farewells" from the members in the Church. Farewells & homecomings are often the best meetings! Farewells & homecomings bring attendance up like nothing else will. How can that be a bad thing for LDS, Inc? The girls show up... looking great... the boy's friends show up...think about serving a mission themselves... Why would they kill off this tradition if the missionary program itself weren't dying? |
| Subject: | I think you're on the right track. There's got to be more to this story |
| Date: | Oct 11 01:01 |
| Author: | Shake Me |
| Mail Address: |
| than the lame pretext given by Hinckley. The farewells/homecomings
are a big part of Mormon cultural tradition. You don't toss something like that aside just
because there may occasionally be some scheduling complications. (Any half-brained bishop
can resolve those kinds of local scheduling problems.) I think you're right to expect some big changes down the road in the missionary program itself. It's a case of diminishing returns. If nothing else, the Mormon leaders are savvy businessmen. They can see when something's no longer paying dividends and the missionary program probably hasn't been paying for years. I don't think it's even strengthening the commitment of missionaries to Mormonism. If anything, the missionary experience makes a lot of missionaries cynical and opens their eyes to how the promised miracles and inspiration in Mormonism is a lot of hot air. |
| Subject: | when I was an 18 yr old |
| Date: | Oct 11 02:24 |
| Author: | Deet |
| my ward did have a problem with too many farewells and homecomings, Irembember there being 25 deacons when I was one. |
| Subject: | I can see that happening sometimes in the heavily Mormon areas of Utah, |
| Date: | Oct 11 02:38 |
| Author: | Shake Me |
| Arizona or Idaho. But if a particular ward had that kind of
situation, a local set of rules would be appropriate and most of the local members would
recognize the need for some limitations. There really is no need for a churchwide ban to
solve a problem that only affects a handful of wards. I thought that was the whole point
of concepts like "stewardship" and "free agency." Locals are supposed
to learn correct principles and apply them to local situations. But the
"Brethren" don't really seem to believe in free agency and stewardship. They
believe in correlation and uniformity. I grew up far from Utah. In our ward, missionary farewells/homecomings happened, at best, 4-6 times a year. In some years, there were none. The new policy is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist for 90% of the wards. It would be like the Brethren demanding that every Elder's Quorum throughout the Church form snow shovel crews to be responsible for snow removal from November to April of each year. It wouldn't make much sense to the Morgbots living in Hawaii or Australia. But less dramatic examples of this one-size-fits-all approach seem to pop up all the time in the correlated kingdom of Mormonism. |