The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just organized a district in Ilorin, in Kwara State. This is a move into more traditionally Muslim areas of Nigeria, although less so than Jos and Abuja. Those two cities have large populations from the south due to mining and government respectively.
There are also some branches in the north in more traditionally Muslim areas. Still Ilorin is probably the first place to get a district that was a base of one of the Emirates in the Sokoto Caliphate. It was also part of the British Protectorate of Northern Nigeria before the unification of 1908, which some call the mistake of 1908, which gave us the modern, culturally bifurcated country of Nigeria.
The Church has had a branch in Ilorin since 1992, but didn't get a second branch there until 2016. It was long part of the Enugu Mission, after the 1992-1993 plan to have a mission based out of Ilorin was decided to not be a worthwhile use of mission resources.
Ilorin is now in the newly formed Ibadan Mission. I am not sure if prior to July it was in the Enugu Mission or the Lagos Mission. Enugu was where the Mabeys and Cannons lived on their mission to Nigeria in 1978-1979. Although unlike places further south there were no pre-existing believers, they did convert many Christians in that city.
However Ilorin is not Muslin at the same level of northeast Nigeria. There is not Sharia law there. Nor does it have as deep Muslim roots as the northwest in places like Kano.
Christian missionaries did not come to Ilorin until about 1905, although there were unsuccessful attempts earlier. However in the 1920s indigenous Christian Churches sprang up in the area. The exact balance of Christians and Muslims I have not yet learned. Ilorin has long been a place of many ethnic groups. The largest, the Yoruba, who dominate the whole of south-west Nigeria from Lagos north, are majority Muslim but with noticeable numbers of Christians. The Hausa, Nupe and Falani among other groups are thought to be almost all Muslim. However there have also been migrations from the basically all Christian south-east of Nigeria. Thus, religious plurality exists and better for LDS growth, it often exists in Churches that embrace the gifts of the spirit and notions of personal revelation through dreams.
Last year there were similar growth anniversaries of forming districts in the eastern parts of Nigeria's middle belt. This area in the time around 2000 saw some of the worst inter-communal violence in Nigeria. The violence has since moved north, where Boko Haram has more often attacked more moderate Muslims, instead of the Christian/Muslim fighting in the middle belt area. I hope the Church continues to grow in the middle belt. Still, there are large swaths in the southern third of Nigeria of places that are not yet part of a branch or ward. Akwa Ibom has a lot of rural presence of the Church, this is the area where many of the pre-1978 congregations waiting on the misisonaries were. However even in Cross River State, that included Akwa Ibom in 1978 and thus the Cross River district was the first one formed in Nigeria, even in Cross River State the northern part of the state there are just two branches, with boundaries in theory stretching 30 miles or more out of the location city, but probably much of the area still yet unreached.
On the other hand, the area between Calabar and the Cameroon border, is assigned to the mission branch. So there is a lot of potential for growth in much of Nigeria.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Breast feeding in Church
A local woman in Utah who has made waves and started a fight with her bishop wants The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to come out with a uniform policy on breast feeding. This is an idea so culturally specific I think only a Utah Latter-day Saint would ever come up with it.
To begin with, I am not convinced the actions of her bishop were as much a reaction to her breast feeding in public as opposed to her combative and rude reactions to others issues with it.
Actions in public society can never just be about a woman and her child and how they want to do things. They have to be navigated by other cultural considerations. Personally I can see values in opening more space for breast feeding. On the other hand I have read other places where people actually gripe that women's restrooms in LDS Church buildings have been made too comfortable for breast feeding.
I have known other buildings that had rooms specifically just for breast feeding, this is more common in newer buildings. I have also known other buildings with large numbers of mothers of young children to transform a classroom into a breastfeeding station.
The main reason why I think the demand here is unworkable is that breast feeding is a culturally navigated issue. In some cultures breast feeding in public is viewed very differently than others. Any possible statement on the matter would either offend people in some cultures where things are approached very privately, or those who allow it much more in the open.
Worse still, a lot of possible statements on the issue would offend people in both cultures.
This is clearly an issue best decided at the local level.
To begin with, I am not convinced the actions of her bishop were as much a reaction to her breast feeding in public as opposed to her combative and rude reactions to others issues with it.
Actions in public society can never just be about a woman and her child and how they want to do things. They have to be navigated by other cultural considerations. Personally I can see values in opening more space for breast feeding. On the other hand I have read other places where people actually gripe that women's restrooms in LDS Church buildings have been made too comfortable for breast feeding.
I have known other buildings that had rooms specifically just for breast feeding, this is more common in newer buildings. I have also known other buildings with large numbers of mothers of young children to transform a classroom into a breastfeeding station.
The main reason why I think the demand here is unworkable is that breast feeding is a culturally navigated issue. In some cultures breast feeding in public is viewed very differently than others. Any possible statement on the matter would either offend people in some cultures where things are approached very privately, or those who allow it much more in the open.
Worse still, a lot of possible statements on the issue would offend people in both cultures.
This is clearly an issue best decided at the local level.
More on Miss America
So the Philadelphia Inquierer published some quite informative articles on the Miss America pageant. This may be in part because Atlantic City where it is held is within the paper's greater readership area.
What we learn from all of this, and from thinking about it, is that Miss America is in crisis. The removal of the old board and the introduction of a new leadership has caused a break. Many people feel they were basically told the competition had to either drop the swimsuit portion, or be dropped by ABC. It is now clear that was never the case, and they feel lied to.
However a bigger break seems to be a fight over the wording of the contracts. The new leadership, if I am reading what is going on correctly, seems to want to make Miss America an at will employee of the Miss America organization. Weather they would remove her without good cause is hard to say, but I can see people not wanting to make removal easier. There is also talk of giving her bonuses if she does her job well.
Such changes are a lot bigger than ending the swim suit competition and opening the processional to any outfit, not just evening gowns.
Also unclear is how the trickle down from the national organization works. Will all state competitions no longer be allowed swim suit competitions and evening gowns as of next year.
Related to this there has been some argument over the amount of scholarship money given out by Miss America. It used to claim $45 million, but only around $2 million is actually traced. One issue often overlooked is scholarship awards are a funky thing.
Miss America compensated winners in furs and movie contracts in the 1930s. In 1944 it began giving out college scholarships. However contestants must be between age 18 and 26. Maybe it is time to reconsider the top age and move to 30. Either way, not all 26-year-olds will be going to college within the allowed time for the scholarship money. Others will have bills below what they win. This might not be a direct likelihood for those people the top prize, but many of these contestants will have other scholarship sources. So like most scholarships that awarded and that paid out is not the same.
However Miss America has another problem. It is actually the main motivation behind dropping the swim suit competition, although I am not sure that change will fix the other problem. In the 1980s annual competitors within the system could number 85,000. This year, only 4,000 women entered into the competition at its sub-state level feeder competitions.
Why this is I cant say for sure. Marriage rates for women in this age bracket have dropped. Have any competitors with out-of-wedlock children ever participated? Even if they are not formally barred, post-pregnant bodies are a hard fight against those that were never such in many cases.
There are many other issues. There are lots more options for women in sports, other scholarship options have also multiplied. Social stigma against pageants has increased. At the same time all youth organizations have struggled. Boy Scouts a little less since the LDS-Church propped it up, but the break between the LDS Church an Boy Scouts may have been because the system called for a level of social capital not workable any more. It also was mainly just the LDS Church and BSA and Boy Scouts Canada, and only on the boys not the girls side. All this made the attempt of leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints such as Russell M. Nelson to create a unifying worldwide program only workable if scouts was left behind.
There is another possible issue. This is competition inflation. Basically over time people run up the stakes of competitions by trying harder and harder to win. This increases the direct financial costs of winning and more often the opportunity cost, the amount of time diverted to winning as opposed to other things.
Closely related to this is the likelihood that the number of local level competitions has fallen. Whenever such a competition folds, it probably decreases the likelihood people will participate.
Right now Miss America is facing the effects of years of fewer competitors and apparently a loss of sponsors. The new contracts seem to say your scholarship money is unsure, and you will be more at will. I can see why people are reluctant to sign such especially with a lack of transparency at the top. Rewriting the contracts the same year the competition itself was so fully reformatted was a very bad idea.
What we learn from all of this, and from thinking about it, is that Miss America is in crisis. The removal of the old board and the introduction of a new leadership has caused a break. Many people feel they were basically told the competition had to either drop the swimsuit portion, or be dropped by ABC. It is now clear that was never the case, and they feel lied to.
However a bigger break seems to be a fight over the wording of the contracts. The new leadership, if I am reading what is going on correctly, seems to want to make Miss America an at will employee of the Miss America organization. Weather they would remove her without good cause is hard to say, but I can see people not wanting to make removal easier. There is also talk of giving her bonuses if she does her job well.
Such changes are a lot bigger than ending the swim suit competition and opening the processional to any outfit, not just evening gowns.
Also unclear is how the trickle down from the national organization works. Will all state competitions no longer be allowed swim suit competitions and evening gowns as of next year.
Related to this there has been some argument over the amount of scholarship money given out by Miss America. It used to claim $45 million, but only around $2 million is actually traced. One issue often overlooked is scholarship awards are a funky thing.
Miss America compensated winners in furs and movie contracts in the 1930s. In 1944 it began giving out college scholarships. However contestants must be between age 18 and 26. Maybe it is time to reconsider the top age and move to 30. Either way, not all 26-year-olds will be going to college within the allowed time for the scholarship money. Others will have bills below what they win. This might not be a direct likelihood for those people the top prize, but many of these contestants will have other scholarship sources. So like most scholarships that awarded and that paid out is not the same.
However Miss America has another problem. It is actually the main motivation behind dropping the swim suit competition, although I am not sure that change will fix the other problem. In the 1980s annual competitors within the system could number 85,000. This year, only 4,000 women entered into the competition at its sub-state level feeder competitions.
Why this is I cant say for sure. Marriage rates for women in this age bracket have dropped. Have any competitors with out-of-wedlock children ever participated? Even if they are not formally barred, post-pregnant bodies are a hard fight against those that were never such in many cases.
There are many other issues. There are lots more options for women in sports, other scholarship options have also multiplied. Social stigma against pageants has increased. At the same time all youth organizations have struggled. Boy Scouts a little less since the LDS-Church propped it up, but the break between the LDS Church an Boy Scouts may have been because the system called for a level of social capital not workable any more. It also was mainly just the LDS Church and BSA and Boy Scouts Canada, and only on the boys not the girls side. All this made the attempt of leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints such as Russell M. Nelson to create a unifying worldwide program only workable if scouts was left behind.
There is another possible issue. This is competition inflation. Basically over time people run up the stakes of competitions by trying harder and harder to win. This increases the direct financial costs of winning and more often the opportunity cost, the amount of time diverted to winning as opposed to other things.
Closely related to this is the likelihood that the number of local level competitions has fallen. Whenever such a competition folds, it probably decreases the likelihood people will participate.
Right now Miss America is facing the effects of years of fewer competitors and apparently a loss of sponsors. The new contracts seem to say your scholarship money is unsure, and you will be more at will. I can see why people are reluctant to sign such especially with a lack of transparency at the top. Rewriting the contracts the same year the competition itself was so fully reformatted was a very bad idea.
Friday, August 3, 2018
Miss America and Mormonism: An Uncomfortable relationship
In some ways the headline understates the difficulties involved. President Spencer W. Kimball directly denounced women parading around in swimsuits to be judged by men in a talk at BYU. Yet there were two Mormon winners of the Miss America title. More recently there was a case where an LDS contestant from Idaho was the only one not to wear a bikini.
On the other hand Charlene Wells' father, Robert E. Wells, of the 70, may have received a confession of sexual improprieties by Joseph Bishop given when he was mission president and neither removed him as mission president nor taken action to prevent his call as MTC president, in the later position he may have abused the authority, that may have been unwisely given him, to initiated sexual relations with sister missionaries, that may or may not have constituted sexual assault. Wells has not yet been given a chance to present his side of what transpired, and at least in some cases Bishop has denied basically all the accusations, so it is hard to know what happened. Still, it is hard to not feel that if Bishop did confess a long standing issue of hyper sexual attraction and at times failing along this line, that giving him a position of trust over young nubile females was anything other than a major mistake.
While Miss America started out as just a chance to show off women in bathing suits to increase tourism to Atlantic City, it soon sought a larger course. In the 1950s it chose to not force Miss America to appear at a specific event in a bathing suit, and its former main sponsor, a bathing suit company, jumped ship, and formed the Miss USA competition.
Miss America was hated by bra burning feminists in the 1970s. From at least some time in the 1950s until about 1989 it banned contestants wearing bikinis. Yet by about 2005 the standard issue for contestants unless they chose otherwise was not just a bikini but a string bikini.
The late 1980s also saw a rise in the quality of talent on the part of the winners. However since then TV ratings have plummeted. However this is true of all TV ratings, as we have more options on TV, more options other than TV.
Where does this all leave us. Well, last winter the previous directors were forced out in the wake of a scandal that involved emails related to saying unkind and gossipy things about contestants. At the same time the Metoo movement, put into over-gear by the fall of Harvey Weinstein last October, but building on other issues but things into high hear. The caderie of accusations by former Miss USA consestants against Donald Trump also may have been motivation.
This lead to a decision in May or June that the competition this year would no longer include a swim suit competition and "contestants will no longer be judged based on looks."
Having read through the reactions posted on the Washington Post comments page I can say a few things. First off, about half the people who posted probably just read the title and then knee jerk reacted. Closely related to that, almost half basically engaged in false dichotomies, that we have women parading around in high heels along with string bikinis, or we have them in full burkhas. On the other hand, others insisted that anyone who paid any attention to how physically attractive women were had no interest in their intellectual abilities.
What really surprised me was that no one really considered weather the super skimpy bathing suits seen in recent Miss America competitions were the only option. Maybe to some people being judged in a one piece or in a bikini is all the same, but no one seemed to even consider this issue.
At the same time people seemed to say this change would effect the chance of the US winning at Miss Universe. The only problem is that Miss Universe is a competition that includes the winner of Miss USA, it has no connection to Miss America.
The total failure of most to get this does show how little most people follow these pageants. Of course to some Wikipedia people I am a radical enemy of articles on pageant winners. This is true, but only because I eventually realized that winning a pageant was not a big deal, contrary to what some editors wanted to say, and at the state level did not justify having an article.
I have never watched the Miss America pageant. I also have never seen the super bowl.
My general thought on the whole issue is I think the Miss America competition is still probably worth keeping. However I am a lot less sure if is worth televising. One big issue is how much will the national level reforms trickle down. Oddly enough because of how they were announced, the 2018 competition for the 2019 title might not incorporate appearance at all, but appearance will have weeded out the contestants.
Will the competition for the 2020 title really "not be based on appearance". I have my doubts. Especially if they keep the same guidelines on age. I doubt we will see many people who are less slender and in others ways fit less a certain body image. Only time will tell for sure.
On the other hand Charlene Wells' father, Robert E. Wells, of the 70, may have received a confession of sexual improprieties by Joseph Bishop given when he was mission president and neither removed him as mission president nor taken action to prevent his call as MTC president, in the later position he may have abused the authority, that may have been unwisely given him, to initiated sexual relations with sister missionaries, that may or may not have constituted sexual assault. Wells has not yet been given a chance to present his side of what transpired, and at least in some cases Bishop has denied basically all the accusations, so it is hard to know what happened. Still, it is hard to not feel that if Bishop did confess a long standing issue of hyper sexual attraction and at times failing along this line, that giving him a position of trust over young nubile females was anything other than a major mistake.
While Miss America started out as just a chance to show off women in bathing suits to increase tourism to Atlantic City, it soon sought a larger course. In the 1950s it chose to not force Miss America to appear at a specific event in a bathing suit, and its former main sponsor, a bathing suit company, jumped ship, and formed the Miss USA competition.
Miss America was hated by bra burning feminists in the 1970s. From at least some time in the 1950s until about 1989 it banned contestants wearing bikinis. Yet by about 2005 the standard issue for contestants unless they chose otherwise was not just a bikini but a string bikini.
The late 1980s also saw a rise in the quality of talent on the part of the winners. However since then TV ratings have plummeted. However this is true of all TV ratings, as we have more options on TV, more options other than TV.
Where does this all leave us. Well, last winter the previous directors were forced out in the wake of a scandal that involved emails related to saying unkind and gossipy things about contestants. At the same time the Metoo movement, put into over-gear by the fall of Harvey Weinstein last October, but building on other issues but things into high hear. The caderie of accusations by former Miss USA consestants against Donald Trump also may have been motivation.
This lead to a decision in May or June that the competition this year would no longer include a swim suit competition and "contestants will no longer be judged based on looks."
Having read through the reactions posted on the Washington Post comments page I can say a few things. First off, about half the people who posted probably just read the title and then knee jerk reacted. Closely related to that, almost half basically engaged in false dichotomies, that we have women parading around in high heels along with string bikinis, or we have them in full burkhas. On the other hand, others insisted that anyone who paid any attention to how physically attractive women were had no interest in their intellectual abilities.
What really surprised me was that no one really considered weather the super skimpy bathing suits seen in recent Miss America competitions were the only option. Maybe to some people being judged in a one piece or in a bikini is all the same, but no one seemed to even consider this issue.
At the same time people seemed to say this change would effect the chance of the US winning at Miss Universe. The only problem is that Miss Universe is a competition that includes the winner of Miss USA, it has no connection to Miss America.
The total failure of most to get this does show how little most people follow these pageants. Of course to some Wikipedia people I am a radical enemy of articles on pageant winners. This is true, but only because I eventually realized that winning a pageant was not a big deal, contrary to what some editors wanted to say, and at the state level did not justify having an article.
I have never watched the Miss America pageant. I also have never seen the super bowl.
My general thought on the whole issue is I think the Miss America competition is still probably worth keeping. However I am a lot less sure if is worth televising. One big issue is how much will the national level reforms trickle down. Oddly enough because of how they were announced, the 2018 competition for the 2019 title might not incorporate appearance at all, but appearance will have weeded out the contestants.
Will the competition for the 2020 title really "not be based on appearance". I have my doubts. Especially if they keep the same guidelines on age. I doubt we will see many people who are less slender and in others ways fit less a certain body image. Only time will tell for sure.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
The Reform of the Church under Russell M. Nelson
It is a bit hard to yet assess the Nelsonian reforms.
Some of this is a result of the Church being run be commitee, in a deliberate way in which no changes are made without consultation.
One thing that is clear, is that the Nelsonian reforms connect to those under Thomas S. Monson.
It is hard to figure exactly where to start tracking the current changes. Another related issue is that many changes are minor, incremental, and sometime hard for Church members let alone those not in the Church to figure out.
The start of the current system can largely be traced to the publication of the current Church Handbook of Instructions. The changes in there are at times complex. The main thrust was to try to shift some responsibilities from the bishop and the bishopric to the ward council. At the same time the ward acativities committee was scapped. In part this was because the committee often would create activities for its own purposes and neither consider the overall needs of the ward nor incoprate the ward into these activities. There are probably other changes, but those are the ones I can explain easiest.
The next big change I think is the introduction of the new curriclum for the youth sunday school classes and seminary and young men/young women. Although I only think this pre-dates the major shift in the age for missionaries.
The new curriculums emphasize more collaborative work and less the teacher just imparting information. On the other hand to some it can tend towards being more repetative than the old curriculum.
The missionary age change is very, very big. For elders not so much, though some. It makes it easier for many to go, and it gives more flexability in when to go. For sisters it is a huge plus. It makes it possible to finish a mission much younger, and makes it possible for many more to go. Weather its net effect is to make it so women in the Church are younger or older when they get married is hard to impossible to track. Since the marriage age has in general been rising for various factors, even if the marriage age in the Church has risen since the missionary age change, that would not show causation.
At this point we get a few other changes. First the church began to have women give prayers in general conference. However I am not sure if any of the prayers in the most recent conference were given by women. Although, what this most emphsizes is that while the talks are written and published, the prayers are not. This is part of why I think this issue has been over publizied by many.
The next set of changes largely result from the missionary age change and the connected rise in the number of sister missionaries. First, the role of the companion (wife) of the mission president was given a more formal setting in the way the mission works. At the same time the zone leaders council was replaced by the mission council. This council involved the mission presidents companion having a formal role. Also, the role of coordinating sister was created.
Next came the revision of the institute curriculum. The move from having the scriptures themselves to a new set up as the main curriculum was unpopular with some. However it generally increased understanding of the way the Church is run.
At this point I think we can start with the 2017 changes. Some of these point to why I cannot easily see a major break from Monsonian to Nelsonian reforms.
The first 2017 reform I can think of is the ending of sponsoring of explorer and varsity programs for the 14-17 year old young men. I have to admit that I do not understand exactly how much the programs for 14-17 year olds have changed, but it was the first step to leaving the scouts.
Other changes in 2017 included the announcment of allowing priests to officiate in baptisms for the dead, the change of the priesthood preview program for 11-year-old boys to priesthood and temple preview for 11-year-old boys and girls. Then of course there was the reformating of the melchizedke priesthood/relief society curriculum. This is a major set of cahgnes. Also there was the announcment that priesthood meeting and the general women's meeting would alternate April and October.
2018 has already seen many changes. The new letters on abuse make it clear that no Church leader should ever encourage anyone to stay in anabusive relationship or discourage reporting abuse. They also say those who report abuse should be believed. What is less clear is how much this is really a change from anti-abuse policies dating back at least to 1994 and stringent rules against those with sexual abuse of children on their record ever working with children.
There were some big changes though. The multiple adults working with youth was extended to all females and not just males. Policies for youth and women to interview not alone were put in place, but it is less clear how much this was a change and how much this was publicizing.
General Conference has major changes. The calling of an Asian-American and a Latin American apostle were the most hyped, but not the biggest changes.
The first major change was the end of high priest groups. In my branch the actual affect is less than clear. However it is a big change and move toward unity in most of the Church. Next, the replacement of home and visiting teaching with ministering is very, very big. It will take a while to understand, but it moves from focused reporting to braod goals.
Next in May we have the announcment of the end of the Church's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America. If there is a misunderstood change, it is this. The goal here is two fold. 1-to make a unified international program. 2-to make the programs for boys and girls more unform.
June sees a few changes, although some are more hype than real. Plans for a new hymnbook and children's songbook are announced. However this involved a 2019 deadline for new hymn submissions, and plans for a unified hymnbook in each language. Although this somewhat existed, for example "israel, Israel, God is Calling" and its French equivalent are both hymn 6 at present.
The Church announced new adult and primary curriculm. I have to admit that I have not yet understood that much. As a Sunday School president, I need to soon.
The new mission presidents seminary was renamed the new mission leaders seminar. This emphasized the key role of the mission presidents compaions (wife). I am not sure if this is more than a symantic change. The seminar was also shortened, and the role of the aposltes and first presidency in running it seems to have increased.
The Church also made much more public the questions asked of youth in limited use temple recomends and other questions, although I have not discerned any actual policy changes there.
Some of this is a result of the Church being run be commitee, in a deliberate way in which no changes are made without consultation.
One thing that is clear, is that the Nelsonian reforms connect to those under Thomas S. Monson.
It is hard to figure exactly where to start tracking the current changes. Another related issue is that many changes are minor, incremental, and sometime hard for Church members let alone those not in the Church to figure out.
The start of the current system can largely be traced to the publication of the current Church Handbook of Instructions. The changes in there are at times complex. The main thrust was to try to shift some responsibilities from the bishop and the bishopric to the ward council. At the same time the ward acativities committee was scapped. In part this was because the committee often would create activities for its own purposes and neither consider the overall needs of the ward nor incoprate the ward into these activities. There are probably other changes, but those are the ones I can explain easiest.
The next big change I think is the introduction of the new curriclum for the youth sunday school classes and seminary and young men/young women. Although I only think this pre-dates the major shift in the age for missionaries.
The new curriculums emphasize more collaborative work and less the teacher just imparting information. On the other hand to some it can tend towards being more repetative than the old curriculum.
The missionary age change is very, very big. For elders not so much, though some. It makes it easier for many to go, and it gives more flexability in when to go. For sisters it is a huge plus. It makes it possible to finish a mission much younger, and makes it possible for many more to go. Weather its net effect is to make it so women in the Church are younger or older when they get married is hard to impossible to track. Since the marriage age has in general been rising for various factors, even if the marriage age in the Church has risen since the missionary age change, that would not show causation.
At this point we get a few other changes. First the church began to have women give prayers in general conference. However I am not sure if any of the prayers in the most recent conference were given by women. Although, what this most emphsizes is that while the talks are written and published, the prayers are not. This is part of why I think this issue has been over publizied by many.
The next set of changes largely result from the missionary age change and the connected rise in the number of sister missionaries. First, the role of the companion (wife) of the mission president was given a more formal setting in the way the mission works. At the same time the zone leaders council was replaced by the mission council. This council involved the mission presidents companion having a formal role. Also, the role of coordinating sister was created.
Next came the revision of the institute curriculum. The move from having the scriptures themselves to a new set up as the main curriculum was unpopular with some. However it generally increased understanding of the way the Church is run.
At this point I think we can start with the 2017 changes. Some of these point to why I cannot easily see a major break from Monsonian to Nelsonian reforms.
The first 2017 reform I can think of is the ending of sponsoring of explorer and varsity programs for the 14-17 year old young men. I have to admit that I do not understand exactly how much the programs for 14-17 year olds have changed, but it was the first step to leaving the scouts.
Other changes in 2017 included the announcment of allowing priests to officiate in baptisms for the dead, the change of the priesthood preview program for 11-year-old boys to priesthood and temple preview for 11-year-old boys and girls. Then of course there was the reformating of the melchizedke priesthood/relief society curriculum. This is a major set of cahgnes. Also there was the announcment that priesthood meeting and the general women's meeting would alternate April and October.
2018 has already seen many changes. The new letters on abuse make it clear that no Church leader should ever encourage anyone to stay in anabusive relationship or discourage reporting abuse. They also say those who report abuse should be believed. What is less clear is how much this is really a change from anti-abuse policies dating back at least to 1994 and stringent rules against those with sexual abuse of children on their record ever working with children.
There were some big changes though. The multiple adults working with youth was extended to all females and not just males. Policies for youth and women to interview not alone were put in place, but it is less clear how much this was a change and how much this was publicizing.
General Conference has major changes. The calling of an Asian-American and a Latin American apostle were the most hyped, but not the biggest changes.
The first major change was the end of high priest groups. In my branch the actual affect is less than clear. However it is a big change and move toward unity in most of the Church. Next, the replacement of home and visiting teaching with ministering is very, very big. It will take a while to understand, but it moves from focused reporting to braod goals.
Next in May we have the announcment of the end of the Church's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America. If there is a misunderstood change, it is this. The goal here is two fold. 1-to make a unified international program. 2-to make the programs for boys and girls more unform.
June sees a few changes, although some are more hype than real. Plans for a new hymnbook and children's songbook are announced. However this involved a 2019 deadline for new hymn submissions, and plans for a unified hymnbook in each language. Although this somewhat existed, for example "israel, Israel, God is Calling" and its French equivalent are both hymn 6 at present.
The Church announced new adult and primary curriculm. I have to admit that I have not yet understood that much. As a Sunday School president, I need to soon.
The new mission presidents seminary was renamed the new mission leaders seminar. This emphasized the key role of the mission presidents compaions (wife). I am not sure if this is more than a symantic change. The seminar was also shortened, and the role of the aposltes and first presidency in running it seems to have increased.
The Church also made much more public the questions asked of youth in limited use temple recomends and other questions, although I have not discerned any actual policy changes there.
Our Great Leader: Russell M. Nelson
I feel like we have not had enough coverage of Russell M. Nelson. I also have a sense of not understanding him very well.
I read the biography of President Nelson by Spencer J. Condie back about when it came about in 2003 or so. That means it has been 15 years.
President Nelson was a very important person in the rise of modern heart surgery. I am not sure anyone who can express this issue eloquently has done it enough coverage.
President Nelson was the moving force behind the expansion of the Church into eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He has also made many, many visits to countries such as Kenya, Mozambique, Ghana and on and on.
Unlike most other current members of the quorum of the 12, President Nelson was never resident outside the US as a general authority. He was stationed in Korea and Japan while working in Army medical during the Korean War, although that was a investigative and moving assignment. He is also fluent in Mandarin. I am not sure what other languages he is fluent in.
Monday, April 23, 2018
The real internationalization of Church leadership
some would argue that the Church first went global no later the 1970s when Neal A. Maxwell and the Church Board of Education decided instead of having Americans run the Church Educational System worldwide, they would proactively recruit people from various countries and as much as possible have the Church Educational System run by locals. This is why Elder uceda, Elder Taylor Godoy, Elder De Hoyos and Elder Dube among LDS general authroties from outside the US all spent their careers running the Church's supplemental weekday religious education programs (seminaries and institutes) in their various countries, or at least as full-time Church employees running it. Elder De Hoyos may have never run it for more than Mexico. Elder Uceda I am not 100% sure on what the area he oversaw was exactly. Elder Godoy was last running the Church Educational System in his native Peru, plus Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Elder Dube ran it in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi. The data on this issue is hard to find, but I have the impression that basically all international areas had locals running the Church Educational System at all levels, at a time when the Presiding Bishopric which oversees properties of the Church and distribution of funds and other physical operational activities was often relying more on Americans sent abroad. Thus the person who recruited Elder Soares into working as a fulltime employee of the LDS Church as Brazil South Area auditor in the 1990s was an American working as the head of temproal affairs in the Brazil Area at a time when the CES had been run by Brazilians for over 20 years. Elder Michael J. Teh, the only current general authority seventy from the Philippines, spent his career working for the Church. He was head of member and statistical records for the Philluipines Area and before that had worked as temple recorder. So less focused on fiancial issues than Soares, but not in a position where he worked directly with the teaching of Church doctrines, as were Dube, De Hoyos, Uceda and Godoy (plus Elder Paul Johnson from the US, not to mention Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the 12, although Holland since he was a religion professor at BYU came up from a slightly more acdemic pathway than some of the others), Elder Tanuiel B. Wakolothe only general authority seventy to date from Fiji, spent his early career as a police officer. However he was head of the Church's Fiji Service Center before becoming a mission president (in Arkansas, but that is another story). I have not yet figured out if this service center was involved in tracking land records, distributing lesson materials, or a place where employment and other services were given, or maybe even both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)