Hello again, everyone! As promised, I am back with a report on the remaining Church News stories that I found significant. First of all, in connection with the article published about Elder Soares, there was also this one regarding how a "chance meeting" (I put that in quotation marks because I don't believe it was in any way accidental) years ago between Elder Soares, his wife, and some members of the Church led to a life-long friendship. That was an amazing article to read.
Before moving on, I did want to make another observation here about the diversity of those at the top of the Church's leadership hierarchy. If my memory serves me correctly, although Elder Dale G. Renlund was born in the US, his parents emigrated from Sweden, and he grew up speaking Swedish primarily, with English as a second language. So technically he is a first-generation American-born apostle.
Additionally, with the calls of Elders Gong and Soares, they join Elder Uchtdorf in the growing group of apostles born outside of the US. It is significant to me that now, 1/5 of the currently serving apostles were born outside the US. And if, as I have observed, President Nelson might be more open to the idea of considering internationally-born candidates for any future vacancy (or, if there are no others before his own passing, his successors might continue to be open to that prospect), we will likely see the number of international apostles grow in coming years as well. It will be interesting to see what happens there.
But in moving on, I wanted to next note that the Church has released a new PDF version of the chart showing the General Authorities and General Officers of the Church, which includes those changes sustained in April (Elders Gong and Soares to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elders Coook and Gay to the Presidency of the Seventy (although there will, as President Oaks noted, be three changes in that Presidency on August 1), the 8 new General Authority Seventies, the new Primary Presidency First Counselor, and the new members of the Young Women General Presidency).
The PDF version of the chart would seem to confirm that there are indeed 90 General Authority Seventies (unless I have somehow miscalculated), which, if we add the 25 men in the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Presidency of the Seventy, and Presiding Bishopric, brings the total number of current General Authorities to 115 rather than the 116 President Oaks mentioned. Since we don't know how he arrived at that number, it is almost impossible to know if he was off by one.
But if he was, I am inclined to cut him some slack. If reports are correct, there is a lot of time and effort that goes into preparing each General Conference address, and for the members of the First Presidency who specifically speak more than once per conference, having to devote time and effort into multiple addresses, even those in which Church leadership changes are announced, takes even more preparation time. I for one have never had a problem with acknowledging that our leaders are not perfect. That should be obvious to everyone. Only one Man I know of was ever perfectly perfect. The rest of us, whatever our calling or station, are equally prone to err in this life. And rather than being discouraging, the idea that even those at the top of Church leadership make mistakes should be encouraging. These men's amazing lives have been characterized by their ability to move beyond their mistakes and become better, which is a lesson we could all take to heart.
Sorry. I rambled again. Getting back on track, the Church News released this article with brief biographies of the newly sustained Area Seventies. As another quick sidenote, it is worth mentioning that such information has traditionally been published on Mormon Newsroom directly following the Saturday Afternoon Session. For whatever reason (which was probably due to the many other major stories that took precedence), this Church News article was the first introduction to these new area seventies. An interesting tidbit, but that is to be expected.
The final two stories I wanted to share are connected to President Nelson's ongoing world tour. This one shares highlights of the time the Nelsons and the Hollands spent in London England. This was a homecoming of sorts for Elder Holland, who serve a mission in the British Isles. And, to wrap up the news stories I wanted to cover, this report shares some preliminary details about the Church members in Jerusalem Israel preparing to greet the prophet, who was set to visit there today. Hopefully more will be reported about that visit in the next few hours. If that occurs, I will pass the information along in another new post.
Before I close this one, however, I wanted to observe something. As anyone familiar with the signs of the Second Coming of the Savior knows, the scriptures speak of two apostles who, during the opening of the seventh seal, will be killed in Jerusalem, and whose bodies will be left in the streets there for three days before they arise again. Some sources I have read wondered if those two will be President Nelson and Elder Holland, and that this might occur on their current trip. While it is not out of the question, it seems unlikely that will be the case. I say that for a couple of reasons.
Among the signs preceding the Second Coming, there are many that have already been manifested, while there are others that could happen any day now, and still others may be a few years (if not indeed a few decades) out. A careful reading of the sequence of events would seem to indicate that there are still other signs that need to occur before the death of the two apostles in Jerusalem.
That said, I am not in any way authorized to interpret the scriptures or to speak for the Lord. If the Lord wants that sign to occur during this trip, I have no doubt that we would hear of it at some point perhaps before today is over. I will not be surprised either way. And I for one hope the Lord will come sooner rather than later.
I likewise hope that my analysis of this news has been helpful to at least some of you reading it. 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.
Friday, April 13, 2018
Additional Church News--Part Two: An Exploration of Several Other Significant Stories
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.
Additional Church News--Part One: Article Published to Introduce Elder Soares; Some Additional Thoughts and Observations About the Calling of an Apostle
Hello again, everyone! In yet another example of how quickly new Church developments can be reported, I am pleased to post now in order to pass along many additional Church News stories that are worthy of a mention here. I became aware of many of these news articles earlier today, but due to taking care of some personal obligations, I was not able to pass those along before now. I should also note that this will be done in two parts. In this first part, I will be highlighting an article about new apostle Elder Ulisses Soares, and I will also touch on some observations regarding the administration of the Church, the handling of day-to-day questions from Church members, and how the calls of Elders Gong and Soares were handled differently than apostolic calls in the recent past. So let's get right to it.
In posting some Church news stories yesterday, I had referenced an article the Church news published to introduce Elder Gong. Today it was Elder Soares' turn. One common theme that I really appreciated in yesterday's article about Elder Gong was also present in this article about Elder Soares. Both articles mention the fact that, while our two newest apostles recognize that their appointments are historic for the Church (as Elder Gong is the first Asian American apostle, and Elder Soares is the the first Latin American apostle), they recognize that they have not been called to represent Asian or Brazilian Saints in the leading councils of the Church or to the Lord, but rather to represent the Lord's will to the people wherever they are sent.
And it is a point well taken. Many people seem to feel that there should be more diversity among the leading councils of the Church, and such people also found fault with President Nelson for the way he answered the question about diversity in Church leadership. While the Brethren we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators do manifest the Lord's will to us, and are the only ones authorized to speak in the Lord's behalf, as someone who has been a lay member of the Church for just over 31 years now, I know there is truth in what President Nelson said during the press conference.
The Brethren would not be as free as they currently are to discern, determine, and proclaim the will of the Lord if they were constantly being called upon to make determinations about local issues. Many people seem to feel that they have a right to discuss whatever their concerns or issues are with the leading Brethren of the Church, but overlook the fact that such things are now handled by local leaders. The fact is that if every concern was handled on a general level in this global Church, hardly any of the Brethren would be free to do much else than that. If local leaders are given the chance to resolve such things, as should be occurring, that will leave the Brethren free to not just settle important issues on a Churchwide scale, but, more importantly, to be out among the people of the world, and gaining more of an understanding about what Church members and friends of other faiths in various nations are experiencing, that they might more effectively minister and administer to people of all backgrounds.
And while it is significant, to be sure, that the first two apostles selected during President Nelson's administration were from minority groups in the Church, I would hope that the point made by both Elder Gong and Elder Soares is not lost: their focus will be representing the Lord's will to the people, and they are anxious to go wherever they are sent.
One other take-away I got from these articles about our newest apostles is that, for the first time of which I am aware, both Elders Gong and Soares, in reporting the circumstances of their calls, noted that they and their wives were asked to meet with President Nelson. That is somewhat unprecedented, in my experience. We have heard new apostles previously say that after they met with the Church president, they then shared the unexpected news of their new callings with their wives. But this is yet another example of how President Nelson is demonstrating his clear understanding of how such calls will affect the spouses involved as well, and also, by extension, how important the wives of these new apostles will be in terms of allowing their husbands to serve. That was great to read about.
As noted above, I had started this post intending to cover many news stories in one go, but the commentary I felt to provide on this article introducing Elder Soares makes it necessary to put the other stories in a post of their own. Therefore, 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 (which should be published within the next half hour or so and will touch on other important Church news), I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
In posting some Church news stories yesterday, I had referenced an article the Church news published to introduce Elder Gong. Today it was Elder Soares' turn. One common theme that I really appreciated in yesterday's article about Elder Gong was also present in this article about Elder Soares. Both articles mention the fact that, while our two newest apostles recognize that their appointments are historic for the Church (as Elder Gong is the first Asian American apostle, and Elder Soares is the the first Latin American apostle), they recognize that they have not been called to represent Asian or Brazilian Saints in the leading councils of the Church or to the Lord, but rather to represent the Lord's will to the people wherever they are sent.
And it is a point well taken. Many people seem to feel that there should be more diversity among the leading councils of the Church, and such people also found fault with President Nelson for the way he answered the question about diversity in Church leadership. While the Brethren we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators do manifest the Lord's will to us, and are the only ones authorized to speak in the Lord's behalf, as someone who has been a lay member of the Church for just over 31 years now, I know there is truth in what President Nelson said during the press conference.
The Brethren would not be as free as they currently are to discern, determine, and proclaim the will of the Lord if they were constantly being called upon to make determinations about local issues. Many people seem to feel that they have a right to discuss whatever their concerns or issues are with the leading Brethren of the Church, but overlook the fact that such things are now handled by local leaders. The fact is that if every concern was handled on a general level in this global Church, hardly any of the Brethren would be free to do much else than that. If local leaders are given the chance to resolve such things, as should be occurring, that will leave the Brethren free to not just settle important issues on a Churchwide scale, but, more importantly, to be out among the people of the world, and gaining more of an understanding about what Church members and friends of other faiths in various nations are experiencing, that they might more effectively minister and administer to people of all backgrounds.
And while it is significant, to be sure, that the first two apostles selected during President Nelson's administration were from minority groups in the Church, I would hope that the point made by both Elder Gong and Elder Soares is not lost: their focus will be representing the Lord's will to the people, and they are anxious to go wherever they are sent.
One other take-away I got from these articles about our newest apostles is that, for the first time of which I am aware, both Elders Gong and Soares, in reporting the circumstances of their calls, noted that they and their wives were asked to meet with President Nelson. That is somewhat unprecedented, in my experience. We have heard new apostles previously say that after they met with the Church president, they then shared the unexpected news of their new callings with their wives. But this is yet another example of how President Nelson is demonstrating his clear understanding of how such calls will affect the spouses involved as well, and also, by extension, how important the wives of these new apostles will be in terms of allowing their husbands to serve. That was great to read about.
As noted above, I had started this post intending to cover many news stories in one go, but the commentary I felt to provide on this article introducing Elder Soares makes it necessary to put the other stories in a post of their own. Therefore, 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 (which should be published within the next half hour or so and will touch on other important Church news), I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
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.
Temple Updates (Including Revised Thoughts on Announced Temples)
Hello again, everyone! I am back yet again with another post, this one that will cover some temple updates, which includes revised thoughts about announced temples. So let's get right to it. First, a general update; While no other temples under construction or undergoing renovation have had an update in their statuses since my last report, I did find an additional update for the Kinshasa DR Congo Temple. Yesterday I had reported that exterior cases had been poured, and that interior work was progressing. While those details have not changed, most sources I have available have added that a retaining wall is being poured along with the exterior staircases. That was good to hear.
With that said, I also wanted to note that there has been a major change in the order in which I list those temples that have not progressed beyond an announcement. This is primarily because, as noted below, I became aware of new information that indicated the probable locations of some of these temples, although, with a few exceptions (namely the Urdaneta and Greater Manila Philippines, Brasilia Brazil, and Bangkok Thailand Temples, all of which have had an official confirmation of their site locations).
As you will notice from the revised order, which I will share below, the Pocatello Idaho and Saratoga Springs Utah Temples have moved up on the list, because a probable site has been identified for the former, and it has been noted for the latter that the design process is underway. I have also adjusted the order of the Layton Utah and Richmond Virginia Temples, since new information has indicated that the Church procured certain plots of land in both locations, which reportedly occurred for the former just two days prior to its' announcement, while for the latter, a newspaper report notes that land was procured in 2015.
Just as a general point of information, I will also be watching for news of the Managua Nicaragua Temple site with great interest as well. Longtime readers of this blog will no doubt recall that, when sharing my belief that a Nicaraguan temple was just a matter of time, I used a report I had received in sharing the news that land has been held in reserve for a temple in Managua for a while now. The Church may at some point confirm that the site on which this temple will eventually be built is that one that had been held in reserve for an announcement.
All of that said, the revised version of the list of announced temples that I keep with my traditional temple construction report follows below. So as not to disturb the flow of that information, I will close now as I always do. 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.
With that said, I also wanted to note that there has been a major change in the order in which I list those temples that have not progressed beyond an announcement. This is primarily because, as noted below, I became aware of new information that indicated the probable locations of some of these temples, although, with a few exceptions (namely the Urdaneta and Greater Manila Philippines, Brasilia Brazil, and Bangkok Thailand Temples, all of which have had an official confirmation of their site locations).
As you will notice from the revised order, which I will share below, the Pocatello Idaho and Saratoga Springs Utah Temples have moved up on the list, because a probable site has been identified for the former, and it has been noted for the latter that the design process is underway. I have also adjusted the order of the Layton Utah and Richmond Virginia Temples, since new information has indicated that the Church procured certain plots of land in both locations, which reportedly occurred for the former just two days prior to its' announcement, while for the latter, a newspaper report notes that land was procured in 2015.
Just as a general point of information, I will also be watching for news of the Managua Nicaragua Temple site with great interest as well. Longtime readers of this blog will no doubt recall that, when sharing my belief that a Nicaraguan temple was just a matter of time, I used a report I had received in sharing the news that land has been held in reserve for a temple in Managua for a while now. The Church may at some point confirm that the site on which this temple will eventually be built is that one that had been held in reserve for an announcement.
All of that said, the revised version of the list of announced temples that I keep with my traditional temple construction report follows below. So as not to disturb the flow of that information, I will close now as I always do. 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.
Announced
temples:
171. Bangkok Thailand Temple: Planning and approvals;
artist’s rendering released on March 19, 2018.
Note:
With the site identified and the release of the artist’s rendering, a
groundbreaking for this temple may just be a matter of time.
172. Urdaneta Philippines Temple: Awaiting government
approvals.
Note:
The biggest barriers preventing progress on this temple were getting government
approval and having an official site announced. With the recent confirmation of
the site location, it may simply be a matter of time before government approval
goes through, at which point a groundbreaking can be held.
173. Lima Peru Los Olivos Temple: Planning and
preliminary construction phase; awaiting official site announcement.
Note:
The contractor assigned to oversee design and construction for this temple
indicated in March 2017 that a year of pre-planning would be needed before a
groundbreaking was held. If that year has come and gone, we may see a
groundbreaking set soon.
174. Brasilia Brazil Temple: Planning and approval;
site inspected by Church engineers on June 21, 2017.
Note:
With the site having been confirmed and inspected almost a year ago, a
groundbreaking for this temple may just be a matter of time.
175. Greater Manila Philippines Temple: Planning and approval;
awaiting official name announcement.
Note:
The site for this temple was confirmed not long after it was announced. Whether
or not an official name is announced anytime soon, it may just be a matter of
time until the groundbreaking is held.
176. Pocatello Idaho Temple: Planning and approval;
awaiting official site announcement.
Note:
Although the citizens of Pocatello have speculated about two or more potential
locations for this temple, one of those locations has emerged as being the most
likely to be chosen. Depending on how quickly that is confirmed, a
groundbreaking could follow shortly thereafter.
177. Saratoga Springs Utah Temple: Planning and
approval; designs underway; awaiting official site announcement.
Note:
Having received notification that the design process is underway for this
temple, since it is a Utah temple, it seems relatively safe to assume that a
groundbreaking could be held sooner rather than later.
178. Layton Utah Temple: Announced April 1, 2018; awaiting
official site announcement.
Note:
The Church reportedly acquired land in Layton two days before this temple was
announced. Based on that acquisition, members have speculated that will be the
most likely location for this temple. If that is confirmed in the near future,
since this is a Utah temple, a groundbreaking could occur sooner rather than
later.
179. Richmond Virginia Temple: Announced April 1, 2018;
awaiting official site announcement.
Note:
In mid-April 2018, a Virginia newspaper disclosed that the Church had purchased
an 8-acre site in 2015. If the Church confirms that the site in question will
be the official location for the temple, a potential groundbreaking could
follow shortly thereafter, especially since temples in the US generally have
their construction start a lot sooner than their international counterparts.
180. Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple: Planning and approval;
awaiting official site announcement.
181. Quito Ecuador Temple: Planning and approval; awaiting
official site announcement.
182. Harare Zimbabwe
Temple: Planning and approval; awaiting official site announcement.
183. Belem Brazil
Temple: Planning and approval; awaiting official site announcement.
184. Nairobi Kenya
Temple: Planning and approval; awaiting official site announcement; media event
held June 14, 2017.
185. Salta Argentina
Temple: Announced April 1, 2018; awaiting official site announcement.
186. Bengaluru India Temple: Announced April 1, 2018;
awaiting official site announcement.
187. Managua Nicaragua Temple: Announced April 1, 2018;
awaiting official site announcement.
Note: When I first began sharing my thoughts on potential temples, I
heard that the Church had land held in reserve in Nicaragua for a temple to be
built when the timing and conditions were right for a subsequent announcement.
If the Church confirms at any point both the site location and that it was
being held in reserve, a groundbreaking could follow sooner rather than later.
188. Cagayan de Oro
Philippines Temple: Announced April 1, 2018; awaiting official site
announcement.
189. Russia: Announced April 1, 2018; awaiting official
location and site announcement.
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.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Response to Recent Content Published on the LDS Church Growth Blog--Part Two: The Role of Women in the Church
Hello again, everyone! I am back with the second post I promised that will share my thoughts in response to things recently posted on the LDS Church Growth Blog. Again, I hope it is clearly understood that I have the utmost respect for Matthew Martinich and the work he does to bring us the latest Church growth developments, and that respect is extended to everyone who shares their thoughts in response to his posts. In another recent post, Matt highlighted the many major milestone announcements, including all developments noted in the April General Conference.
He then went on to share some developments he is predicting for the future of the Church as President Nelson's administration continues. One such prediction was that the role of women in the Church would be more prominently felt in terms of additional administrative responsibilities in missionary and temple/family history work.
And that prediction is the springboard for my post here. There seems to be a mistaken idea in the Church that, unless women are given equal authority and responsibility in the Church, they are somehow seeing themselves or are being seen by their male counterparts as inferior in the work. That idea also stems from the negative response some had to the way that President Nelson and his counselors answered the question that was asked about the role of women in the Church.
Let me be clearly understood: I honor, respect, and, to the degree that I can, revere the women in my life, particularly the mother who gave birth to me and took care of me through the course of numerous health challenges, including hospital stays, multiple surgeries, and extensive illnesses, and the woman I married, who saw in me not the broken man I felt I was at the time, but the man which I am capable of becoming, and who continues to encourage me to rise above present ongoing illnesses that at the best of times limit my capacity to get things done.
But the role of these wonderful women in the Church, and their divine identity and purpose, seems to have been lost in the midst of those who perpetuate the idea that, unless women are given greater opportunity and authority to serve in the Church, their value in the eyes of heaven is somehow lessened.
So let's talk about this for a little bit. As a man who grew up with a loving mother and excellent sisters, I never once saw myself as being of more value to the Lord than they were. To the contrary: In moments when I have had the opportunity to give them priesthood blessings (which has been repeatedly extended further to administering to my wife in the seven years of my marriage), I have felt, even to the very smallest degree, how important, treasured, unique, and special these women are, and how much Heavenly Father loves them.
I have also been gratified to hear prophets (particularly Presidents Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson) highlight the important role of good women, and their value in heaven's eyes. So the idea that they could have more value to the Church and its' leaders if they were given more responsibility and prominent roles in the work of the kingdom boggles my mind. While I never have and likely never will serve in capacities where I would frequently participate in ward councils, I have had one opportunity (as a member of the Ward Sunday School Presidency) to sit in one particular ward council where women were present, and being in the Sunday School Presidency, I also had the opportunity to orient teachers, regardless of gender, to their new responsibilities. The women especially showed understanding of the importance of their calling to teach the youth, male and female, and to share insights that would bless them in their future lives.
And since getting married, I have frequently received input from my wife about things I need to change or do better. In such moments, when my heart has been right and when I have accepted such advice and correction, I have been all the better for it. But my wife has been very clear that she doesn't need or want a more prominent role in the Church.
I will take this a step further. One of the things Matt specifically predicted was that women would be given more of a role in temple and family history and missionary work. As a former temple worker myself, I can say that the work I did in the temple would never have been possible were it not for the women on our shifts (including the one I would later married) being there doing their parts as well. I have sat in numerous training sessions for temple workers where the insights from our sister counterparts changed the course of both the conversation and our ministry. And I have seen priesthood power at work within the women alongside whom I served. It was amazing to behold.
Here is the problem that I have with the idea that women should be given more of a role in administering the Lord's work: In asking any missionary who has ever served under any mission president, I have learned that the real work of the mission is directly facilitated by the women who serve alongside their husbands in the mission presidencies of the Church. The same is true for area presidencies, stake presidencies, and bishoprics. I have often heard bishops say they have been advised that their wives should be their main counselors in their ministry, and I have seen that at work.
Nearly three years ago (in August 2015), the Church announced that women would take part in three major Church councils, with the Relief Society President serving on the Priesthood and Family Executive Council (formerly the Priesthood Executive Council), the Young Women General President serving on the Missionary Executive Council, and the Primary General President serving on the Temple and Family History Executive Council. That was an important step forward in the Church.
But the main problem I see with such women having expanded responsibilities in the Church, particularly those relating to day-to-day administration, is that, unless I am mistaken, all general authorities are called to full-time service, while the auxiliary presidencies of the Church serve on more of a part-time basis, comparable to area seventies or ward or stake leaders. That difference makes it difficult (but not perhaps impossible or out of the question) for more responsibility to be given to general officers of the Church, who retain their occupations, where applicable. Could it be done? Absolutely, but that would involve greater regulation of the time spent in such callings, which might potentially lead those so asked to have less time to be with their families.
That said, it has also been a relatively recent development for one member of each of the five Church auxiliaries to serve as an advisor or assistant editor for the Church magazines. So in that respect, the influence of the general officers, and therefore the scope of their obligations, has widened very recently. The Church may opt to give general officers more responsibility, but I am not sure how that would work, unless those given such responsibilities are asked to commit more time to the calling.
In summary, I think that people who claim that women do not have enough prominence or responsibility may miss the mark or have failed to consider just how pivotal the contributions of women are to the furthering of the Lord's work. Truth be told, were it not for 15 women, we would not have our current 15 apostles, which all of them have been frequently mentioning. I do not say by any means that birthing children is the one and only role of a woman. What I am saying is that the influence of women is felt to a much larger degree by those of us fortunate enough to be within the scope of their influence than many people realize or acknowledge.
A quick internet search for "Women using priesthood power" yields over 800,000 results. Among the very best of those results are this article from 2014, this classic talk from General Conference, this essay, which includes relevant links to several other brilliant resources, this LDS Living article featuring general insights on the subject, and this one, in which Elder Dale G. Renlund and his wife Ruth share thoughts on that subject. There are many other wonderful resources, which, as noted, can be found with a simple internet search.
I think the bulk of the misunderstanding comes from a misconception about the difference between roles, responsibilities, capabilities, and influence of men vs. women, Every man in the Church with whom I have conversed on this subject have quickly observed that they would not be who they are today without the support and influence of the women in their lives.
So that brings the question: Could or should women be given more administrative duties in the Church? With God, nothing is impossible, and if General Conference earlier this month proved one thing to me, it is that the Lord's ways, thoughts, and timing is vastly different to ours. With that in mind, if the Church sees a way in which the influence of women can be more fully felt in key decisions, policies, and doctrinal determinations within the Church, a way will be open to enable that to happen.
Will women ever be given the priesthood? That is a different question, to which I think the answer is no. The main reason I say that is because the Lord seems to have entrusted that responsibility to men like myself, not because we are any more important in heaven's eyes, but because of what the Lord needs us to become through administering to our fellow man. Women don't need to have that experience because their very nature is geared towards doing whatever they can to influence others for good. Women would never be prone to exercising unrighteous dominion or to any improper tendencies. Perhaps the Lord is telling us as men that we need to not only become better, but that we should more fully emulate the qualities that women already innately have.
That said, I fully believe that the Brethren recognize the ways in which the world would try to suggest that women currently have a diminished role or decreased importance in both the Church and, by extension, the eyes of heaven. We have recently seen things occur that put women on the same plane and footing as men (for example, home and visiting teaching being replaced with a "minsitering" program that has the same guidelines for men and women), and I fully believe that when the timing and circumstances are right for it, the Brethren will seek for and determine ways in which to continue to expand the opportunities for our dear sisters of the Church, and will both now and in the future continue to regularly emphasize the important influence, place, and standing of women in the Church.
The way I see it, there is a reason that the Lord saved the process of creating women as the final step of the process of creating this world. The creation of the fairer, gentler, and, in many ways, more superior counterpart to man was the crowning part of that process. And all of us, men and women alike, will be blessed as we come to understand just how amazing women really are.
Thank you for wading through this, which wasa longer than I intended to be. 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.
He then went on to share some developments he is predicting for the future of the Church as President Nelson's administration continues. One such prediction was that the role of women in the Church would be more prominently felt in terms of additional administrative responsibilities in missionary and temple/family history work.
And that prediction is the springboard for my post here. There seems to be a mistaken idea in the Church that, unless women are given equal authority and responsibility in the Church, they are somehow seeing themselves or are being seen by their male counterparts as inferior in the work. That idea also stems from the negative response some had to the way that President Nelson and his counselors answered the question that was asked about the role of women in the Church.
Let me be clearly understood: I honor, respect, and, to the degree that I can, revere the women in my life, particularly the mother who gave birth to me and took care of me through the course of numerous health challenges, including hospital stays, multiple surgeries, and extensive illnesses, and the woman I married, who saw in me not the broken man I felt I was at the time, but the man which I am capable of becoming, and who continues to encourage me to rise above present ongoing illnesses that at the best of times limit my capacity to get things done.
But the role of these wonderful women in the Church, and their divine identity and purpose, seems to have been lost in the midst of those who perpetuate the idea that, unless women are given greater opportunity and authority to serve in the Church, their value in the eyes of heaven is somehow lessened.
So let's talk about this for a little bit. As a man who grew up with a loving mother and excellent sisters, I never once saw myself as being of more value to the Lord than they were. To the contrary: In moments when I have had the opportunity to give them priesthood blessings (which has been repeatedly extended further to administering to my wife in the seven years of my marriage), I have felt, even to the very smallest degree, how important, treasured, unique, and special these women are, and how much Heavenly Father loves them.
I have also been gratified to hear prophets (particularly Presidents Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson) highlight the important role of good women, and their value in heaven's eyes. So the idea that they could have more value to the Church and its' leaders if they were given more responsibility and prominent roles in the work of the kingdom boggles my mind. While I never have and likely never will serve in capacities where I would frequently participate in ward councils, I have had one opportunity (as a member of the Ward Sunday School Presidency) to sit in one particular ward council where women were present, and being in the Sunday School Presidency, I also had the opportunity to orient teachers, regardless of gender, to their new responsibilities. The women especially showed understanding of the importance of their calling to teach the youth, male and female, and to share insights that would bless them in their future lives.
And since getting married, I have frequently received input from my wife about things I need to change or do better. In such moments, when my heart has been right and when I have accepted such advice and correction, I have been all the better for it. But my wife has been very clear that she doesn't need or want a more prominent role in the Church.
I will take this a step further. One of the things Matt specifically predicted was that women would be given more of a role in temple and family history and missionary work. As a former temple worker myself, I can say that the work I did in the temple would never have been possible were it not for the women on our shifts (including the one I would later married) being there doing their parts as well. I have sat in numerous training sessions for temple workers where the insights from our sister counterparts changed the course of both the conversation and our ministry. And I have seen priesthood power at work within the women alongside whom I served. It was amazing to behold.
Here is the problem that I have with the idea that women should be given more of a role in administering the Lord's work: In asking any missionary who has ever served under any mission president, I have learned that the real work of the mission is directly facilitated by the women who serve alongside their husbands in the mission presidencies of the Church. The same is true for area presidencies, stake presidencies, and bishoprics. I have often heard bishops say they have been advised that their wives should be their main counselors in their ministry, and I have seen that at work.
Nearly three years ago (in August 2015), the Church announced that women would take part in three major Church councils, with the Relief Society President serving on the Priesthood and Family Executive Council (formerly the Priesthood Executive Council), the Young Women General President serving on the Missionary Executive Council, and the Primary General President serving on the Temple and Family History Executive Council. That was an important step forward in the Church.
But the main problem I see with such women having expanded responsibilities in the Church, particularly those relating to day-to-day administration, is that, unless I am mistaken, all general authorities are called to full-time service, while the auxiliary presidencies of the Church serve on more of a part-time basis, comparable to area seventies or ward or stake leaders. That difference makes it difficult (but not perhaps impossible or out of the question) for more responsibility to be given to general officers of the Church, who retain their occupations, where applicable. Could it be done? Absolutely, but that would involve greater regulation of the time spent in such callings, which might potentially lead those so asked to have less time to be with their families.
That said, it has also been a relatively recent development for one member of each of the five Church auxiliaries to serve as an advisor or assistant editor for the Church magazines. So in that respect, the influence of the general officers, and therefore the scope of their obligations, has widened very recently. The Church may opt to give general officers more responsibility, but I am not sure how that would work, unless those given such responsibilities are asked to commit more time to the calling.
In summary, I think that people who claim that women do not have enough prominence or responsibility may miss the mark or have failed to consider just how pivotal the contributions of women are to the furthering of the Lord's work. Truth be told, were it not for 15 women, we would not have our current 15 apostles, which all of them have been frequently mentioning. I do not say by any means that birthing children is the one and only role of a woman. What I am saying is that the influence of women is felt to a much larger degree by those of us fortunate enough to be within the scope of their influence than many people realize or acknowledge.
A quick internet search for "Women using priesthood power" yields over 800,000 results. Among the very best of those results are this article from 2014, this classic talk from General Conference, this essay, which includes relevant links to several other brilliant resources, this LDS Living article featuring general insights on the subject, and this one, in which Elder Dale G. Renlund and his wife Ruth share thoughts on that subject. There are many other wonderful resources, which, as noted, can be found with a simple internet search.
I think the bulk of the misunderstanding comes from a misconception about the difference between roles, responsibilities, capabilities, and influence of men vs. women, Every man in the Church with whom I have conversed on this subject have quickly observed that they would not be who they are today without the support and influence of the women in their lives.
So that brings the question: Could or should women be given more administrative duties in the Church? With God, nothing is impossible, and if General Conference earlier this month proved one thing to me, it is that the Lord's ways, thoughts, and timing is vastly different to ours. With that in mind, if the Church sees a way in which the influence of women can be more fully felt in key decisions, policies, and doctrinal determinations within the Church, a way will be open to enable that to happen.
Will women ever be given the priesthood? That is a different question, to which I think the answer is no. The main reason I say that is because the Lord seems to have entrusted that responsibility to men like myself, not because we are any more important in heaven's eyes, but because of what the Lord needs us to become through administering to our fellow man. Women don't need to have that experience because their very nature is geared towards doing whatever they can to influence others for good. Women would never be prone to exercising unrighteous dominion or to any improper tendencies. Perhaps the Lord is telling us as men that we need to not only become better, but that we should more fully emulate the qualities that women already innately have.
That said, I fully believe that the Brethren recognize the ways in which the world would try to suggest that women currently have a diminished role or decreased importance in both the Church and, by extension, the eyes of heaven. We have recently seen things occur that put women on the same plane and footing as men (for example, home and visiting teaching being replaced with a "minsitering" program that has the same guidelines for men and women), and I fully believe that when the timing and circumstances are right for it, the Brethren will seek for and determine ways in which to continue to expand the opportunities for our dear sisters of the Church, and will both now and in the future continue to regularly emphasize the important influence, place, and standing of women in the Church.
The way I see it, there is a reason that the Lord saved the process of creating women as the final step of the process of creating this world. The creation of the fairer, gentler, and, in many ways, more superior counterpart to man was the crowning part of that process. And all of us, men and women alike, will be blessed as we come to understand just how amazing women really are.
Thank you for wading through this, which wasa longer than I intended to be. 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.
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.
Response to Content Posted Recently on the LDS Church Growth Blog--Part One: The Top 10 Dependencies With the Strongest Church Presence Without a Temple in Any Phase
Hello again, everyone! As the title of this post implies, this will be the first post in a miniseries which I will do to share my thoughts about content recently posted on the LDS Church Growth Blog. As an introduction to this series, I just want to establish right off the bat that I have a profound respect and appreciation for the work Matthew Martinich does on that blog, and for those who take time to comment on the things he posts there. That said, there have been a few times (which will likely not be the last) when something that is said by either Matt or those who comment on the topics about which he posts which I feel warrants further analysis from me here on this blog.
Matt recently put up this post, which continues his intermittent series on the top 10 nations or dependencies in the world that have the strongest Church presence but have not yet had a temple announced. I appreciate the work he does to frequently post those, especially when one or two locations previously on his list of the top 10 have a temple subsequently announced in General Conference, which makes it necessary to revisit that list.
While he has done very well to consider the current composition of temple districts and to share unit information that backs up his rationale for each nation's place on the list, I wanted to get more into the numbers behind those picks. So I ran distance calculations between each of those nations and their currently-assigned temple (or, where applicable, those temples announced or under construction that would cover those locations when they are dedicated).
I grouped them in that order, and then, in a note below that list, shared my feelings regarding the order in which those locations might potentially have a temple announced, along with any pertinent information I had available that has led me conclude that any of them could be announced in a different order. The results of that research follows below.
In order to not interrupt the flow of that information, I want to end now as I always do. 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.
1. Papua New Guinea. Members in Port Moresby travel 2,178 miles to their assigned temple in Suva Fiji, which is more than 10½ times further than the 200 mile distance specified by President Monson. And although the Sydney Australia Temple is slightly closer (at 1,704 miles, which is still 8½ times further than that 200 mile distance), it appears that, for whatever reason, the determination was made to assign the Saints in Papua New Guinea to the more distant temple. It is therefore likely that a temple will be announced in Port Moresby in the near future, especially since land has reportedly been held in reserve for that purpose for a while now.
2. Puerto Rico: Members in San Juan travel 251 miles to reach their assigned temple in Santo Domingo Dominican Republic, which is just above the 200-mile goal. Although there have been significant natural disasters there within the last year, a temple in that nation may just be a matter of time.
3. Kiribati: Members in Tarawa currently travel 1,402 miles to their assigned temple in Suva Fiji, and no other current or potential future temple is closer than that. Since that is over 7 times further than the 200-mile goal that has been set by other Church presidents, a temple in Tarawa could just be a matter of time.
4. Sierra Leone: Members in Freetown currently travel 1,272.4 miles to reach their assigned temple in Accra Ghana (which is a little over 6 times further than the 200-mile goal). Once the temple in the Ivory Coast is built, that distance will be cut to 942.1 miles (which is still over 4½ times further than that 200-mile goal). So a temple in Freetown may just be a matter of time.
5. American Samoa: Members in Pago Pago currently travel 101 miles to their assigned temple in Apia Samoa. Although that temple is within an easy distance (101 miles, which is half as far as the 200-mile goal), it is not impossible to believe that a temple could be built in Pago Pago at some point, with the one question being how soon that might occur.
6. Uganda: Members in Kampala currently travel 2,565.6 miles to their assigned temple in Johannesburg South Africa. That distance will be cut to 1,882.2 miles once the Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple is dedicated, and will be cut further to 1,795.5 miles once the temple in Harare Zimbabwe is built and dedicated. But the significant distance cut will occur when the Nairobi Kenya Temple is built and dedicated, which will cut the distance to 404.5 miles. While that is only slightly more than double the 200-mile goal, it is not hard to believe that Kampala could (and likely will) get a temple in the not-too-distant future.
7. Cambodia: Members in Phnom Pehn currently travel 963 miles to their assigned temple in Hong Kong China. Once the Bangkok Thailand Temple is dedicated, that will cut the distance to 413.7 miles, which is just over twice the 200-mile goal. Since the only other announced temple in Asia (for Bengaluru India) will not cut that distance further (as it will be over 10 times further from Phnom Pehn), a temple for Cambodia may simply be a matter of time.
8. Cape Verde: Members in Praia currently travel over 10 times further than the 200 mile goal (2,125 miles, to be exact) to attend the temple in Madrid Spain. When the Lisbon Portugal Temple is dedicated, that distance will be cut to 1,861 miles, which is still more than 9 times further away than the mileage goal that has been set. For that reason, a temple in Praia may just be a matter of time.
9. Liberia: Saints in Monrovia currently travel almost 5 times further than the 200 mile goal (the exact distance is 973.8 miles) to attend the Accra Ghana Temple. That distance will be cut to 643.5 miles when the Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple is dedicated. If the Church announces and builds a temple in Sierra Leone, that distance would additionally be cut just about in half to 338 miles. While that distance is not even 1.5 times the 200-mile goal, there may be enough reason to believe that a temple in Monrovia could happen sooner rather than later.
10. Madagascar: Saints in Anatananarivo currently travel 3,658 miles to their currently assigned temple in Accra Ghana. That would be cut to 2,390 once the temple in Kinshasa is dedicated (assuming Madagascar would then fall under that district), and it would be cut further once the temple in Harare Zimbabwe is built and dedicated (with that distance being 1,082 miles). But since even that distance is 5 times further than the 200-mile goal, it is not hard to believe that a temple in Madagascar might be announced sooner rather than later.
Final note: Based on the factors mentioned above, and other elements I have studied on my own time, if I had to pick a potential likely order in which any of these nations might have a temple announced, I would do so as follows: Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Cape Verde, Kiribati, Madagascar, , Liberia, and. It is also interesting to consider that, among these 10 nations, 3 (Kiribati, American Samoa, and Papua New Guinea) are in the Church’s Pacific Area, 2 more are in the Africa Southeast Area (Madagascar and Uganda), 2 are in the Africa West Area (Sierra Leone and Liberia) 1 is in the Caribbean Area (Puerto Rico), 1 other is in the Asia Area (Cambodia), and the remaining 1 is in the Europe Area (Cape Verde). It is also worth noting that Church growth experts have stated that the trends of such growth in Africa is such that the number of current temples within the African continent could potentially double (if not triple or quadruple) within the next 20-30 years or so. It continues to amaze me how the Lord moves his work forward in unexpected ways. Since two of the previous top ten from 2017 saw a temple announced this year (Nicaragua at #1 and Russia at #4), it is not hard to believe that the top ten list will continue to change based on future announcements. And I believe that many (if not all) of these current top ten could potentially have a temple announced within the next 15-30 years, although some will obviously be more imminent.
Matt recently put up this post, which continues his intermittent series on the top 10 nations or dependencies in the world that have the strongest Church presence but have not yet had a temple announced. I appreciate the work he does to frequently post those, especially when one or two locations previously on his list of the top 10 have a temple subsequently announced in General Conference, which makes it necessary to revisit that list.
While he has done very well to consider the current composition of temple districts and to share unit information that backs up his rationale for each nation's place on the list, I wanted to get more into the numbers behind those picks. So I ran distance calculations between each of those nations and their currently-assigned temple (or, where applicable, those temples announced or under construction that would cover those locations when they are dedicated).
I grouped them in that order, and then, in a note below that list, shared my feelings regarding the order in which those locations might potentially have a temple announced, along with any pertinent information I had available that has led me conclude that any of them could be announced in a different order. The results of that research follows below.
In order to not interrupt the flow of that information, I want to end now as I always do. 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.
1. Papua New Guinea. Members in Port Moresby travel 2,178 miles to their assigned temple in Suva Fiji, which is more than 10½ times further than the 200 mile distance specified by President Monson. And although the Sydney Australia Temple is slightly closer (at 1,704 miles, which is still 8½ times further than that 200 mile distance), it appears that, for whatever reason, the determination was made to assign the Saints in Papua New Guinea to the more distant temple. It is therefore likely that a temple will be announced in Port Moresby in the near future, especially since land has reportedly been held in reserve for that purpose for a while now.
2. Puerto Rico: Members in San Juan travel 251 miles to reach their assigned temple in Santo Domingo Dominican Republic, which is just above the 200-mile goal. Although there have been significant natural disasters there within the last year, a temple in that nation may just be a matter of time.
3. Kiribati: Members in Tarawa currently travel 1,402 miles to their assigned temple in Suva Fiji, and no other current or potential future temple is closer than that. Since that is over 7 times further than the 200-mile goal that has been set by other Church presidents, a temple in Tarawa could just be a matter of time.
4. Sierra Leone: Members in Freetown currently travel 1,272.4 miles to reach their assigned temple in Accra Ghana (which is a little over 6 times further than the 200-mile goal). Once the temple in the Ivory Coast is built, that distance will be cut to 942.1 miles (which is still over 4½ times further than that 200-mile goal). So a temple in Freetown may just be a matter of time.
5. American Samoa: Members in Pago Pago currently travel 101 miles to their assigned temple in Apia Samoa. Although that temple is within an easy distance (101 miles, which is half as far as the 200-mile goal), it is not impossible to believe that a temple could be built in Pago Pago at some point, with the one question being how soon that might occur.
6. Uganda: Members in Kampala currently travel 2,565.6 miles to their assigned temple in Johannesburg South Africa. That distance will be cut to 1,882.2 miles once the Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple is dedicated, and will be cut further to 1,795.5 miles once the temple in Harare Zimbabwe is built and dedicated. But the significant distance cut will occur when the Nairobi Kenya Temple is built and dedicated, which will cut the distance to 404.5 miles. While that is only slightly more than double the 200-mile goal, it is not hard to believe that Kampala could (and likely will) get a temple in the not-too-distant future.
7. Cambodia: Members in Phnom Pehn currently travel 963 miles to their assigned temple in Hong Kong China. Once the Bangkok Thailand Temple is dedicated, that will cut the distance to 413.7 miles, which is just over twice the 200-mile goal. Since the only other announced temple in Asia (for Bengaluru India) will not cut that distance further (as it will be over 10 times further from Phnom Pehn), a temple for Cambodia may simply be a matter of time.
8. Cape Verde: Members in Praia currently travel over 10 times further than the 200 mile goal (2,125 miles, to be exact) to attend the temple in Madrid Spain. When the Lisbon Portugal Temple is dedicated, that distance will be cut to 1,861 miles, which is still more than 9 times further away than the mileage goal that has been set. For that reason, a temple in Praia may just be a matter of time.
9. Liberia: Saints in Monrovia currently travel almost 5 times further than the 200 mile goal (the exact distance is 973.8 miles) to attend the Accra Ghana Temple. That distance will be cut to 643.5 miles when the Abidjan Ivory Coast Temple is dedicated. If the Church announces and builds a temple in Sierra Leone, that distance would additionally be cut just about in half to 338 miles. While that distance is not even 1.5 times the 200-mile goal, there may be enough reason to believe that a temple in Monrovia could happen sooner rather than later.
10. Madagascar: Saints in Anatananarivo currently travel 3,658 miles to their currently assigned temple in Accra Ghana. That would be cut to 2,390 once the temple in Kinshasa is dedicated (assuming Madagascar would then fall under that district), and it would be cut further once the temple in Harare Zimbabwe is built and dedicated (with that distance being 1,082 miles). But since even that distance is 5 times further than the 200-mile goal, it is not hard to believe that a temple in Madagascar might be announced sooner rather than later.
Final note: Based on the factors mentioned above, and other elements I have studied on my own time, if I had to pick a potential likely order in which any of these nations might have a temple announced, I would do so as follows: Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Cape Verde, Kiribati, Madagascar, , Liberia, and. It is also interesting to consider that, among these 10 nations, 3 (Kiribati, American Samoa, and Papua New Guinea) are in the Church’s Pacific Area, 2 more are in the Africa Southeast Area (Madagascar and Uganda), 2 are in the Africa West Area (Sierra Leone and Liberia) 1 is in the Caribbean Area (Puerto Rico), 1 other is in the Asia Area (Cambodia), and the remaining 1 is in the Europe Area (Cape Verde). It is also worth noting that Church growth experts have stated that the trends of such growth in Africa is such that the number of current temples within the African continent could potentially double (if not triple or quadruple) within the next 20-30 years or so. It continues to amaze me how the Lord moves his work forward in unexpected ways. Since two of the previous top ten from 2017 saw a temple announced this year (Nicaragua at #1 and Russia at #4), it is not hard to believe that the top ten list will continue to change based on future announcements. And I believe that many (if not all) of these current top ten could potentially have a temple announced within the next 15-30 years, although some will obviously be more imminent.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)