The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough, but the descriptor stands. I've been posting on this board for three years, Scott. You and I have interacted various times and even when we have disagreed, you've never suggested that I was a sockpuppet or anything less than genuine.

My mind tends to focus on discussions rather than personalities. I do know a few contributors on here quite well (on-line personae, that is) but most of them I don't, and frankly, I don't have a very clear memory of what interactions you and I have had in the past.

Suddenly Pahoran throws out an assertion and questions come to mind? You could have just listened to the Spirit. He knows the truthfulness of all things.

But the Spirit doesn't grant omniscience, not even to ordained prophets, seers and revelators. So, quite a bit of the time, we have to do pedestrian things like asking questions.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Skylla]

Pahoran: Don't accuse posters of being sockpuppets. If you have a concern, report it to the moderators. Everyone get back on topic, please.

Skylla

[MorningStar]

I think taking the sacrament without hearing the prayer is like only showing up for the dunking part of your baptism. I don't take the sacrament if I'm late because I feel like I need to make it a big enough priority to plan ahead and be there on time or early if I'm habitually late. I can see giving someone the sacrament late under unsual circumstances, but not a young adult who doesn't have much of an excuse.

Edited March 21, 2012 by MorningStar

[Scott Lloyd]

I think taking the sacrament without hearing the prayer is like only showing up for the dunking part of your baptism. I don't take the sacrament if I'm late because I feel like I need to make it a big enough priority to plan ahead and be there on time or early if I'm habitually late. I can see giving someone the sacrament late under unsual circumstances, but not a young adult who doesn't have much of an excuse.

Well stated, MorningStar.

And I like your new blog, by the way.

[mercyngrace]

I think taking the sacrament without hearing the prayer is like only showing up for the dunking part of your baptism.

I agree. The prayers are an integral part of the sacrament.

I don't take the sacrament if I'm late because I feel like I need to make it a big enough priority to plan ahead and be there on time or early if I'm habitually late.

Me either. But if someone else feels differently and the bishop is amenable, I'm not going to condemn them.

I can see giving someone the sacrament late under unsual circumstances, but not a young adult who doesn't have much of an excuse.

Yep. I think the problem in mtomm's story was that there was a misunderstanding about the meaning of the sacrament. I thought mfbukowski's response was perfect - allow the girl to take the sacrament and then gently teach her why doing so wasn't particularly necessary.

[MorningStar]

Well stated, MorningStar.

And I like your new blog, by the way.

Thanks, Scott!

[MorningStar]

I agree. The prayers are an integral part of the sacrament.

Me either. But if someone else feels differently and the bishop is amenable, I'm not going to condemn them.

Yep. I think the problem in mtomm's story was that there was a misunderstanding about the meaning of the sacrament. I thought mfbukowski's response was perfect - allow the girl to take the sacrament and then gently teach her why doing so wasn't particularly necessary.

Yes, that is a good approach. Not that Heavenly Father wants to deny anyone the sacrament, but He might say, "Church starts at 9, sweetie! Be on time next week so you don't miss out." I will never forget walking into the foyer and seeing my friend who dragged himself to church while he was dying of cancer. I didn't even recognize him because he was losing so much weight. I wondered, "Who is that man wiping his face with the handkerchief?" Then I realized it was him. I cried for about the next hour. I think about him when I have some dumb reason for being late.

Edited March 21, 2012 by MorningStar

[Calm]

But, of all the people on the board, I find calmoriah to be the most trustworthy and I do believe her.

Quite a compliment, Scott. Thank you.

[mercyngrace]

Yes, that is a good approach. Not that Heavenly Father wants to deny anyone the sacrament, but He might say, "Church starts at 9, sweetie! Be on time next week so you don't miss out." I will never forget walking into the foyer and seeing my friend who dragged himself to church while he was dying of cancer. I didn't even recognize him because he was losing so much weight. I wondered, "Who is that man wiping his face with the handkerchief?" Then I realized it was him. I cried for about the next hour. I think about him when I have some dumb reason for being late.

What came to mind as I was reading this post, MS, was the account of the Lord and the Greek woman.

She came to Him seeking a priesthood blessing and moved by her faith, He violated the explicit order of things and pronounced the blessing based on her faith.

This was not the only time He did such.

[Calm]

Generically speaking...

I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.

I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.

Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.

Edited March 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[Grundelwalken]

Generically speaking...

I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.

I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.

Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.

As someone who grew up thinking sacrament meeting started with the sacrament (because my parents were chronically late) I have some compassion for those who can't make it on time. Those who CAN'T get there deserve a chance to partake but those who WON'T get there should expect no such promise from the priesthood. MW

[Calm]

As someone who grew up thinking sacrament meeting started with the sacrament (because my parents were chronically late) I have some compassion for those who can't make it on time. Those who CAN'T get there deserve a chance to partake but those who WON'T get there should expect no such promise from the priesthood. MW

Succinctly put.

[mfbukowski]

I find it rather frustrating that mercyngrace says everything I would have said, except in such a way that she proves she is a nicer and more patient person than I am. And as if that wasn't enough, I'm outta rep points for the day!

It is a cold, cruel world.

I know. She's a terrible person.

[juliann]

.

If you want to lend some credibility to your pose of enlightened superiority, you might want to re-think some of your tactics; especially the one where you flat-out misrepresent the positions of your ideological opponents.

Just a suggestion.

Pahoran, you really do have the wrong idea about MG. I consider her a good online friend and I think you are being unfair to her. We are all on the same side.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pahoran, you really do have the wrong idea about MG. I consider her a good online friend and I think you are being unfair to her. We are all on the same side.

In a post yesterday, I indicated I had no clear memory of past interactions with mercyngrace on this board. Through the magic of Google, I have refreshed my memory of some past interactions and can now say that had I remembered those interactions earlier, I would not have suspected her of being Serenity/Harmony/Wazing.

In my defense, I can only mention that women sometimes complain of men that they won't ask directions. I have often reflected that an inherent difference seems to be that men are more inclined to look stuff up while women are more apt to ask questions. In this instance, I went against my male nature by asking the question first.

[mercyngrace]

Getting back to Rongo's OP...

I am wary of the UOoT. I accept it in the spirit President Packer spoke about in his talk about it, but have seen too many pet beliefs insisted on as UOoT when there hasn’t been (in my opinion) compelling reasons for it. Sometimes it is downright silly. One major problem with UOoT is that it is by definition unwritten and arbitrary. This was how I found many of the items insisted on by some in the closed thread: an insistence that if things (not so stated in the handbooks) were or were not done a certain way, then it would be on the heads of the presiding authorities who allowed these things to be.

If anything, the last few pages have unintentionally demonstrated the danger of the unwritten order. I've been getting my chops busted for suggesting that there are alternate ways to do things. You'd think I suggested something totally radical like accepting gentile converts without circumcision....

PS I suppose I am more willing to part with tradition because I remember (with the sting of regret) a time when I beat someone up over an issue that seemed to me to go against the Unwritten Order. A sister in our ward was trying to do put together a very Christlike ward project and I spoke firmly against it because I felt her suggestion went against the Unwritten Order and the spirit of some CHI directives. I made my voice heard and later, in a more respectful and quiet way, the Lord made His voice heard in my heart. It was a pointed chastisement with a lasting impact.

Edited March 22, 2012 by mercyngrace

[bluebell]

Pahoran, you really do have the wrong idea about MG. I consider her a good online friend and I think you are being unfair to her. We are all on the same side.

[Duncan]

Generically speaking...

I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.

I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.

Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.

kids can make you late as well!

me-"Put your pants and shirt on and let's go"

kid extraordinaire-"no"

me-"c.mon, we are going to be late"

kid-"good!"

me-"Darth Vader might be giving out free lego star wars stuff"

kid-"you said that last time and you also said he wasn't there because he was robbed in Calgary"

me-"yeah... oh yeah..."!

[mercyngrace]

kids can make you late as well!

me-"Put your pants and shirt on and let's go"

kid extraordinaire-"no"

me-"c.mon, we are going to be late"

kid-"good!"

me-"Darth Vader might be giving out free lego star wars stuff"

kid-"you said that last time and you also said he wasn't there because he was robbed in Calgary"

me-"yeah... oh yeah..."!

LOL!I love the way your mind works, Duncan

We actually took one of our sons to church in a bright orange Spiderman shirt every Sunday for almost a year because it was easier than fighting with him and showing up late and with the wrong frame of heart and mind. He was 2 or 3 years old as I recall. I was mortified at the time but it's actually quite funny now. And sometimes, when I see parents marching oddly dressed little ones into the chapel, I bite my lip so as not to giggle audibly. Stubborn sons of Ephraim, Brother Brigham would say....

[Duncan]

LOL!I love the way your mind works, Duncan

We actually took one of our sons to church in a bright orange Spiderman shirt every Sunday for almost a year because it was easier than fighting with him and showing up late and with the wrong frame of heart and mind. He was 2 or 3 years old as I recall. I was mortified at the time but it's actually quite funny now. And sometimes, when I see parents marching oddly dressed little ones into the chapel, I bite my lip so as not to giggle audibly. Stubborn sons of Ephraim, Brother Brigham would say....

haha! My son has a favourite green shirt he likes to wear but no spiderman!

Edited March 22, 2012 by Duncan

[JDave]

Sunday clothes and tennis shoes. That's my boys.

And that's why...

[Scott Lloyd]

I've contributed to this thread, but haven't really followed it from the beginning. So I just now went back to the first and glanced at the posts. What we have is Rongo initially saying he accepts President Packer's address in the "spirit" in which it was given. But what follows in the thread is several pages of commentary with authors largely complaining about the "unwritten order of things," as though they objected to the very existence of that concept.

So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."

For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.

I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:

The things that I shall tell you are not explained in the scriptures, although they conform to the principles taught in the scriptures.

A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to help you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to adapt and to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as an anchor.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Grundelwalken]

The things that I shall tell you are not explained in the scriptures, although they conform to the principles taught in the scriptures.

A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to help you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to adapt and to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as an anchor.

Thanks Scott. Focusing on Doctrines and Principles will eliminate much of the struggle we have with the UOoT. The Lord has given each of us minds and hearts that are capable of discerning truth. If we listen to the Spirit, we will seldom find ourselves on the wrong side of what God wants. I think our biggest challenge is to overcome the "internal prompter" that wants to modify the message we have received for selfish purposes. At least that's how it works for me. MW

[cinepro]

I've contributed to this thread, but haven't really followed it from the beginning. So I just now went back to the first and glanced at the posts. What we have is Rongo initially saying he accepts President Packer's address in the "spirit" in which it was given. But what follows in the thread is several pages of commentary with authors largely complaining about the "unwritten order of things," as though they objected to the very existence of that concept.

So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."

For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.

I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:

Here are the "unwritten" things the Elder Packer specifically mentions in the talk:

- The one who presides in a meeting should sit on the stand and sit close to the one conducting.

- the first counselor always sits on the right of the president; the second counselor on the left.

- if the presiding officer speaks, it will be at the end of the meeting.

- We do not aspire to calls in the Church, nor do we ask to be released.

- There is an order of things as to where we go for counsel or blessings. It is simple—we go to our parents. When they are no longer available, if it is a blessing, then we may go to our home teacher. For counsel, you go to your bishop. He may choose to send you to his file leader—the stake president. But we do not go to the General Authorities.

- Revelation in the Church is vertical. It generally confines itself to the administrative or geographic boundaries or limitations assigned to the one who is called.

- Bishops should not yield the arrangement of meetings to members. They should not yield the arrangement for funerals or missionary farewells to families.

- Funerals could and should be the most spiritually impressive. They are becoming informal family reunions in front of ward members. Often the Spirit is repulsed by humorous experiences or jokes when the time could be devoted to teaching the things of the Spirit, even the sacred things. When the family insists that several family members speak in a funeral, we hear about the deceased instead of about the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the comforting promises revealed in the scriptures. Now it’s all right to have a family member speak at a funeral, but if they do, their remarks should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting.

- It bothers me to see on a sacrament meeting program that Liz and Bill and Dave will participate. Ought it not be Elizabeth and William and David? It bothers me more to be asked to sustain Buck or Butch or Chuck to the high council. I just say, Can’t we have the full names on that important record? There is a formality, a dignity, that we are losing—and it is at great cost. There is something to what Paul said about doing things “decently and in order.”

That last one is really odd. Obviously, they shouldn't use a blatant nickname, but if someone goes by "Chuck" instead of "Charles", then it may cause confusion if people don't recognize the name. If God isn't bothered by weird Utah baby names like Qwayde, Treygon or Deizel I don't see how He can be bothered by Bill, Chuck or Liz.

Edited March 22, 2012 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Here are the "unwritten" things the Elder Packer specifically mentions in the talk:

A good summary. Thanks.