As Orson Scott Card noted in Saintspeak

Spaulding Theory

This theory holds that if a young man in the church touches a basketball at least 1,000 times in a Church cultural hall, he will eventually go on a mission.

A temporal question…
If yhe question refers to businesses in the secular world, then I believe their responsibility is only to their customers and employees, ie. the well being of the whole.

2.Are Mormon leaders (from Stake Presidents and Bishops and Relief Society Presidents and Sunday School teachers to The Prophet and apostles) different than leaders of secular organizations in this regard?

In a word: Yes. This is the spiritual question.
My take is, it’s all about the individual. Bishops to the song book organizer gets to be responsible for the 100% whole. No one is exempt from the ninety and nine annology. Bishops are responsible for “all” those with in his boundry. If he is doing his calling correctly he delegates the workings of his calling to his counselors and focuses on the individuals of his flock. As “members” our responsibility is to our neighbor. One of the most influential stories told by Christ is the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus recounted this parable to a man who had asked, “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responded by asking, “What is written in the law?”
The man answered, referring to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart … and thy neighbor as thyself.”
When Jesus promised, “This do, and thou shalt live,” the man challengingly replied, “And who is my neighbor?” In answer to this man’s questions, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan. (See Luke 10:25–35.)
The Good Samaritan is a Type and Shadow of how the Plan of Salvation works for each of us. How to live in accordance to that plan and how to understand our individual purpose in that plan.

3. Is there a tension between these possible emphases?

There always has been. Leaders of differing faiths have persecuted the Saints from the beginning of time. There is a pendulum that swings both ways. As members begin to see and understand their responsibilitys a shift from temporal to spiritual occurs, those with out “the light” resist. As there is an “opposition in All Things.”

4. If so, how can they be harmonized – or can they be harmonized?

The only reason we’re here is to Learn. As our understandings of the Gospel increases the better equipt we are to follow the spirit in situations to bring an understanding to both sides of the pendulum. Satan gets this, will he ever come in harmony with the gospel?… He has his responsibility in this plan, we get to find the fence sitters and those who are “willing to give ear to hear” the chance to recieve the blessings of the Kingdom.
All is spiritual in the eyes of our Father. Every situation has a spiritual effect on us as individuals. Our responsibility is to be in harmony with the Father and rely on the other members of the Godhead to lead us in the path that they would best see fit to bring souls unto Him.

5. How do these questions affect our understanding of accountability – both on a communal and individual level?

Accountability is the one true measuring stick in our religion. Weather we know it or not, being accountable is the only question we’ll be asked come Judgement time. What did I “do” to further the Kingdom of God while on earth?

6.What other questions arise from the first three questions – and what do you feel the answers are to these other questions?

Too many to list.
We are each responsible for the people in our lives. How we respond to people represents the place we are at. No one is “better” than the next. We are all learning and that’s what this whole exercise “earth life” is about. I’m just happy to be here to be able to go through these experiences and see “what’s next.”

This is a great example of the balancing act I see with church attendance. I also would never turn away someone wearing ragged clothing and reeking of tobacco and/or alcohol. In fact, I wish desperately that there was much more diversity throughout our chapels. However, I also would never encourage such clothing and practice among the collective congregation. I would hope that those who truly view Sacrament Meeting as a worship service would dress with that in mind, allow all to join them no matter their dress and hope that all – with repeated attendance – would likewise dress with such respect and worship in mind. I am not in favor of any uniformity in dress, but I am solidly in favor of uniformity in attitude – and I believe that such uniformity in attitude tends to cause general similarity in dress.

The only instance where I would discuss attire with a fellow attendant is if the chosen clothing literally was sexually provocative to such an extent that it was a clear and unavoidable distraction to the worship of others – either because of active observation of the attire and the person thus attired or because the studious efforts to avoid observation distracted from the focus on the talks and ordinances and general spirit of the meeting. In that instance, I would focus on the group over the individual, while attempting to address the issue as compassionately as possible.

Dress code is not my beef. Come in jammies if you like. But to tout a church as desirable because it has no standards (the point of the flier) runs contrary to the point of church IMO. Become a secular humanist if that’s the case. They make good neighbors.

Ok, what about it, Hawkgrrl, and Elder Hales? If the gospel of Jesus Christ was being taught at a ward building where half the folks showed up in pajamas, would you stay away? Would their pajamas somehow be evidence that the gospel of Jesus Christ wasn’t really being taught? Would pajamas prevent the Holy Ghost from attending and allowing the Spirit to be felt?

What exactly is wrong with the “shorts, a T-shirt and backless sandals” end of the spectrum? Do we have to ‘capitulate on doctrines’ or ‘water down’ the church to welcome people who come dressed this way? Would more people come to church if they could dress more comfortably? Would a congregation half full of ‘pajama people’ turn other people away?

Ok, that’s probably true. But, I think Ray’s question is, are there ANY things we can do differently that DON’T constitute “watering down” the Church, but that WOULD help retain more (recognizing we’ll never retain ALL).

For example, Elder Hales has an article in this month’s Ensign about grooming and dressing standards. Hawkgrrl commented on a “casual” Protestant church in her neighborhood. Where is the line between wearing a crisp white, long-sleeved shirt, with a recently pressed and cleaned charcoal gray pin-stripe suit, a beautiful silk tie, and highly polished black shoes and coming to church in shorts, a T-shirt and backless sandals? Clearly there is a line SOMEWHERE between those two, but where is the line? How about if the suit is a little wrinkled from being crammed in the closet improperly? How about wearing a polo shirt instead of a T-shirt with the sandals. How about a cream-colored shirt under your suit coat? How about a red shirt? How about a tie with Donald Duck? How about wearing your hair “just a little” too long?

Obviously, there are extremes when dealing with these kinds of things, and we need to be careful, but there is a line somewhere, and we should have some way to define it, agree on it, and move forward.

And, the feminist in me insists that I point out that the focus and emphasis that some people put on how meticulously entire families are dressed, can be very hard on the mom, who is usually (although not always) the person “held responsible” for the appearance of her family at church on Sunday. Boy, did I get one of those looks that only a Mormon wife can give when I told her I was going to church in my pajamas once, because I was too tired to get dressed. Needless to say, I got dressed. (She later told me that she MIGHT have let me get away with it if I hadn’t been conducting in Sacrament meeting that day, but I don’t think she would have.)

There are wards all over the church (and have been for decades) where the Wednesday night (Mutual night) activity for the boys is five or ten minutes of not too well planned out stuff, followed by an hour of basketball. When I would talk with leaders about including more gospel or doctrinal stuff, they would respond that they are trying to get the “inactive” or “less active” or “less interested” boys to at least come to church for “something” and basketball was it. Playing basketball at church, the theory went, was better than them playing on a playground somewhere or not coming to church at all.

There is the argument that playing basketball at church, if that is the focus of the entire months-long or years-long level of partial activity for these “less interested” boys, ACTUALLY is more harmful than playing at a playground. This theory goes that it somehow cheapens or lessens or lowers the church to the level of the playground, because that’s what the boys see it as.

Would Sunday picnics be a good idea? Would they be just like Wednesday night basketball? And, would that be a good thing, to get some less active folks out to at least share a meal with some folks who are “more active” on the tacit promise that there would be no preaching (or very little preaching)? Where is the line?

Ever since I started visiting this forum, I have been trying to figure out where the lines are on things. There are no clear answers to where the lines are on things. I think no clear answers to where the lines are is kind of a “bait and switch” because our church is billed as the “one true church” and the one that has the “fullness of the Gospel” and a whole bunch of other things that get us very close to saying “We have all the answers.” On this blog we all pretend that we’ve never heard that, and that nobody could every possibly have thought that the church claims to have all the answers. But, the fact that we have the answers is the appeal of the church. Truth, capital “t” Restored. That’s our claim.

Prophet who is the “only person” on earth who is authorized to speak for God. That’s our claim.

Sounds like we should have the answers, and we should know where the lines are.

There is a constant battle between the theories of inclusivity and the theories obedience to commandment. Inclusivity folks often see commandments as more flexible, variable. Obedience folks feel they are hard and fast and clear and unbendable. Most of us are somewhere in the middle and it varies with us by what the issue is that we are facing.

I don’t know where the lines are. I have a home teacher (who has been in several bishoprics) who doesn’t believe much of the doctrine of the church at all, and what he does believe changes quite a bit, depending on his situation. Maybe that’s the healthiest attitude. He’s mostly happy at church, wouldn’t attend stake or General Conference even for money and fame, but thoroughly enjoys church and church activities, does his callings, and is a 100 percent home teacher and has been for years. He thinks many of our church leaders are nuts, but he’s ok with that, they don’t bother him, and he doesn’t bother them.

Different strokes for different folks. And in the Mormon Church – imagine that. We’re not really all that monolithic.

I think that this is the whole question that Ray is asking. Where is the line between being inclusive and losing ourselves?

“I don’t see how the church has to capitulate on its doctrines to sponsor a family picnic.”

I think it is pretty simple. Sponsor a family picnic, by all means! On the Sabbath as an alternative to worship, not going to happen. “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” Your suggestion is in fact a capitulation. Again, there are many outlets for that activity outside of our Church.

Why must we be THAT inclusive as to lose ourselves?

Otoh, I think I understand and share your concern. If these activities were organized on days other than Sunday . . . they would be what the Church actually encourages.

I do believe we need to do a better job of talking with those who don’t attend about ways that they might be willing to be involved in things outside of the Sunday block of meetings. If they don’t attend those meetings, they do tend to be written off as “inactive” and not given opportunities to serve in the overall kingdom.

“capitulate on its doctrines and beliefs so that families can have an outing on Sunday?”

I don’t see how the church has to capitulate on its doctrines to sponsor a family picnic.

Some people who are religious don’t fit in well with our 3 hour block of church meetings. Can we do something to accomodate these people? Is 3 hours of church a vital doctrine of the restoration?

Other people who are more secular may not be interested in religion at all, but may find that the church offers some good programs for families, etc. Can we bring these people into the fold in some way–accepting them just as they are?

I’m just trying to be inclusive here.

We got a flier when we moved inviting us to a neighborhood church. Everyone in the pics was dressed for worship like it was a BBQ. The minister wore jeans. The flier advertised that they didn’t care what you believed or have any things you had to do to join. It just wasn’t that appealing to me. Christ gave everything for us. Shouldn’t we be willing to change our lives as well as our hearts to be closer to Him? It reminds me of Don Novello’s riff on SNL that he was creating his own church with 10 suggestions instead of commandments.

Yet, I would accept people into the church on whatever terms necessary without judging them and I would reach out.

I really don’t get why you are saying these things. There are plenty of outlets for families who do not wish to be part of a religion and share its beliefs and practices. The church does much good in the world, but capitulate on its doctrines and beliefs so that families can have an outing on Sunday? c’mon. You’ve got to be pulling my leg here.

Good idea.

“I think the majority of the reason people are inactive is that they have become secularized, don’t see a need for the Gospel in their lives and would rather do something other than attend Church”

This is what I call ‘views’. Their ‘views’ aren’t in line with the orthodox religious views of the church. What if the church was focused more on helping families–whether or not those families actually believed in God? Maybe these people would see value in the church, even if they had no interest in religion.

For those who weren’t religiously inclined, maybe the church could sponsor a sunday afternoon activity for families. If you like the 3 hours of normal church, you can go that route. If you aren’t religious, go to the church sponsored picnic instead. There would be fun family time, community involvement, and a generally positive relationship with the church. And maybe some day these people would become interested in religion…

I already stated there are many many reasons. I have found that doctrinal issues or “views” as you call them, are not that big a part of the reason.

I think the majority of the reason people are inactive is that they have become secularized, don’t see a need for the Gospel in their lives and would rather do something other than attend Church. Many of them would claim to still have a testimony of sorts, but they are just not that interested.

As for making the WoW optional. What’s the point, to keep and attract members? Why don’t we discount tithing while we are at it.

If you are implying that most people are inactive simply due to lacking an invitation, I think that you are the one being silly. Half of the membership of the church is inactive. There are lots of reasons, but a simple invitation isn’t going to bring them all back.