Hello again, everyone! Breaking news from the Church today. In an effort to encourage members to place appropriate focus on Sabbath Day observance and to encourage greater attention to what is said in Church meetings, the Church has announced that, beginning in this month, many social media sites will be blocked on the Church's internet networks.
In my humble opinion, this is a move that is long overdue. I was brought up on the notion that, even as technology evolved, it was not right to use social media at Church, as that would distract both myself and those around me from the appropriate focus that should be placed on learning of the Savior, worshiping Him, and renewing the covenants made at baptism.
This is yet another example of how the Church continues to simplify things, in the hopes of allowing all members to focus on what is most important about the gospel. And I welcome and embrace this news with all my heart.
At the same time, however, it grieves me to realize that the Church would not have needed to take this step if more of the Church members had had common sense enough to put aside their participation on such social media sites.
If we really stop and think about it, the Lord requires relatively little of us. 3 hours a day for most of the 52 or 53 Sundays that are in a year is not a lot of time for which the Lord and the leaders of His Church are asking us to focus on Him and the principles of the gospel. That some people have failed to allow themselves to focus on that for such a short period of time during any given week makes me wonder if social media use and addiction thereunto may be more detrimental to the efforts the people of this Church should be making in their worship of the Savior than any other aspect.
At some point in the last few years, I made the determination that I was spending far too much time on social media. So I determined to gradually decrease the time I spent there. At this time, I am only really on social media once or twice every month or two, and I have not felt as though that is any great loss.
If anything, reducing that time, in my personal opinion, has allowed me to focus on more important things, not the least of which has been the ongoing Church and temple developments that I have read about and passed along to you all.
That is not to say that social media is not an important way to keep in touch with people. But in the "age of information", any one of us, myself included, may be in danger of over-utilizing any one of the many technological advances of this modern age.
So on that level, this is a development that, in my mind, truly is long overdue, and I welcome the opportunity we all, especially those who have been focused more on social media than on the spirit of worship that should attend what has traditionally been called "the most important three hours of the week".
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
BREAKING NEWS: Social Media Sites Will No Longer Be Accessible In Church Meetinghouses Starting This Month
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
8 comments:
In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.
At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.
I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.
And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.
Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is good for the Sabbath day, but during youth and RS activities they should allow Pinterest. That is where most if relief society exists. Lol
ReplyDeleteThank you, Scott. I recognize you intended that comment to be humorous, but I would imagine that one of the main reasons the Church is doing this now is that our leaders have observed how leaving such sites accessible is causing its' members worldwide to not have sufficient focus on or attention to those purposes for which such buildings have been constructed and dedicated: to bring people to and allow them to focus on the Savior. And the really sad thing is that not only have members distracted themselves from that focus, but that focus also serves to detract from the ability of other members around them to focus on such things as well. It is indeed a move long overdue. At best, the Lord requires very few hours of our focus out of the 168 hours He gives us on a weekly basis. For anyone who might, in all seriousness, take issue with this development, that is a stunning indictment of how much they have missed the mark. With this move, I get the feeling that the encouragement to put aside such things was not bringing enough of a result, therefore, Church leaders needed to take a stronger and more firm approach to handling the problem.
DeleteThe scriptures talk a lot about how so many individuals fail to do what the Lord has asked, primarily because of the "easiness and simpleness of the way". So with this development now occurring, a focus that I have personally seen lacking in many congregations of the Church can be once again centered on the Savior and the purposes for which His gospel has been established, as that should have always been the case.
I hope you do not take offense at this reply. I again recognize you meant your comment in a humorous way, but I am not of the opinion that there should be provisions for when the blocked access should be lifted. Thanks, Scott.
I just looked at the list of blocked apps and Facebook isn't included. MySpace is, although it may not be necessary, who still has it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I didn't catch that. In a way, I wish Facebook had been included. If I had a dollar for every time someone sitting near me in Church was actively on Facebook instead of paying attention to the meeting, I would likely be a very wealthy man. That is the one down-side of modern technology. I know that not many people use MySpace, but perhaps enough still do that the leaders of the Church determined it was worth adding to the list. And I have every confidence that if/when Facebook is determined to be a problem, that too might be added to the list as well. Thanks for this additional comment, Scott.
DeleteFacebook is an incredibly helpful tool for clerks and missionaries searching for members who have moved from a ward or are in need of rescue. On the Church's webpage entitled Locating members, it states: "Facebook is the most effective way to find someone. There may be many entries but you can sometimes narrow it down by their friend list i.e. known family members or friends. Be certain to try searching by the member's email address as well." I imagine this is the reason that Facebook has not been blocked at this time.
ReplyDeleteCell service will still allow most members to access social sites on their phones, but at least it won't hamper the Church's network, which is needed for administrative and teaching purposes.
That is an interesting observation and very well-taken point of which I was not aware. If Facebook is enabling rescues like that from Church leaders or missionaries, that would explain why it is not on the list. And, of course, your other point is well-taken as well. For any individuals whose cell phones either use data to access those sites, or who are in range of non-Church networks to which they have previously connected, that obviously will eliminate the "need" to access such sites on the network of a Church building.
DeleteI am personally in an interesting situation in that regard right now. I'd have to double-check the distances, but if memory serves, my wife and I currently reside closer to the stake center than we do to our assigned ward building. So in going to our assigned meetinghouse, we personally would not be in range of our network. But that is somewhat of a moot point anyways, since I have made it my practice to shut off my phone prior to entering a Church building, unless I later need it to access the lesson manuals or enter a new contact from the ward into my phone. I wish other Church members would do the same.
But I can see why the Brethren feel that Facebook is not necessary to add to the list of blocked social media sites. And the fact that steps are being taken to handle this issue is yet another demonstration of what President Oaks noted in the May 2018 Ensign supplement article he wrote in tribute to President Nelson: our prophet is a very active listener who seeks the opinions of others, but at the same time, when he feels a need to act on an impression, he does so immediately and decisively. And I imagine that happened in this case as well.
We have seen overwhelming evidence within the last 3.5 months or so during which President Nelson has been Church president that he is very much determined to discern the will of the Lord on certain issues, and then to act promptly to follow through on the impressions he receives. This latest development truly is yet another example of that ability he has. To echo Elder Holland, "What a prophet!" Thanks for your comment, Rick!
Only about half were social media sites, thje rest were streaming music or video sites. They removed Kahoot from the list because that is a site usedby educators to gauge what thed students know in a fun way using tech they have and seminary teachers use it for that, the teacher has to set up the questions before class then usually asks them at the beginning.
ReplyDeleteSnapchat was not on the list initially but has since been added to the blocked list.
The streaming media sites were an easy call, get even a few on some and it slows down te whole network.
Interesting. I was not aware that they had made additional changes to the list. But it makes sense that these changes would be made for the reasons you noted. It is also worth noting that, as one who has been a teacher in different Church classes where the use of such sites by others in the class during the lessons clearly interfered with my ability to access the materials I needed. In a similar manner, the focus on such sites distracted and detracted from my ability and that of others in the class to focus on the material. So on that front, it is welcome as well.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed somewhat of a recurring theme with all of these developments. For years, Church leaders have tried to impress on us the importance of using modern technology wisely, properly, and judiciously, in addition to doing whatever needs to be done to focus on the worship that should be taking place during the 3-hour block.
In a similar manner, leaders of the Church, especially the apostles, have repeatedly tried to instill in us a desire to minister to those we were assigned to home and visit teach the way Christ would do so if He were here.
I get the overwhelming impression that the apostles have been impressed to make these changes now because there may be many among the membership of the Church that wouldn't listen when subtle, stronger, or even more obvious instruction has been given on these points.
This may be particularly true of the retirement of home and visiting teaching, the implementation of a ministering program, and the blockage of sites that are interfering with the network connection for those that actually need it.
As I have also noted recently, one of the downsides of living in the age of modern technology that we do is that all of us, myself included, can distract ourselves from things that should rightly be more important, such as ministering as Christ did, or putting aside worldly things in favor of being uplifted and edified in Church meetings.
When I first got a cell phone, there was no question in my mind that, when I enter a Church building, the phone went off, unless I subsequently needed to add a contact or access lesson materials. But perhaps others have not made the effort to do so. I am grateful for what the Church has done in replacing home and visiting teaching with ministering, and that action has been taken to ensure that we as Church members have a more uplifting and inspiring experience at Church every week. Thank you for taking time to comment, James Anderson. Hope you are well.