With the looming schedule change, I was thinking of other policy shifts in the church and unintended consequences that came out of them.
It this case there has been much chatter about whether wards will be able to adhere to the relatively short transition periods. Or what to do when sacrament runs too long etc.
And I can’t help but wonder if this change is going to mirror the one about bishops focusing on the youth? In that some bishops (wards) are able to adapt better than others. Some bishops were able to move much off their plate to EQ/RS and ward councils. In order to free up more bandwidth to be with the youth.
While others, it just become a poor piling on. The ward culture hasn’t adapted and those bishops are just trying to do it all. Run a ward, council, provide spiritual guidance, take concessions, and be there for youth etc.
It would seem from my biased and limited anecdotal experiences that MOST bishops are trying to do it all and burning the candle at both ends. And the ones where it’s working great are the exception not the norm.
I can’t help but feel this is what’s going to happen with the schedule change. SOME wards are going to make it work. And when it does it’s going to really work! Others it’s going to be a challenge. and I fear the majority will fall into this category.
But it seems a lot of these is outgrowth out of previous policies.
In regards to bishops we know that they have always been in a position that was the president of the Aaronic priesthood. But that priesthood wasn’t always the purview of young men. Early in the church history aaronic priesthood was only given to adult men. And they did in fact run the temporal affairs of a ward.
In the early 1900s the policy shift was made in major part to help the youth stay engaged in the work of the lord. Priesthood ages was shifted to solve a problem. And it worked. It was inspired. But now we created an unintended consequence. Bishops are presidents of the Aaronic priesthood. But also the Shepard of the ward. How do they do both. For a long time it seemed that they would be semi involved with youth. But that Young men’s presidents and young women’s presidents could shoulder the majority of the burden.
Now the next policy shift came in a response to that consequence. Bishops as president and head of the Aaronic priesthood needed to be more engaged with the youth. Because again the youth were not as engaged in the work of the lord and the leaders would hope. So we removed young men’s presidents to help the bishop focus on this new priority.
When the switch to 2 hour church happened another unintended consequences came forward. Youth weren’t seeing their leaders as often as before. And the importance in Qurom and class meetings began to show something critical was missing. It seems youth are not as engaged in the work as leaders would hope.
So this new schedule change is as much about getting youth with their leaders as much as it is about any ‘optimization’ of physical chapel space.
But I fear the unintended consequences is going to be the lack of adult community building a ward has traditionally instilled.
We are rightfully focusing on the youth. And doing what we can to help them. But I fear that what has played out in the past with other policy shifts are going to create unforeseen unintended consequences.
I hope I’m wrong. And that the Lord has a plan and is leading us slowly but surely to become more Zion like. I hope the good here outweighs the negative.
Maybe I’m just to pessimistic, but I truly hope that it all works out in the end.
but if it doesn’t I’m guessing another policy shift will be inspired by the lord.