The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[rongo]

I was surprised to see the font-filling thread closed (without any indication as to why). I had intended to comment on several items, but haven’t had the time to check in over the last few days. Hence this new thread about a related but different topic: the relative utility and importance of the Unwritten Order of Things™ Some of the more dogmatic comments in that thread laid out directives built around personal views that are not stated in the handbooks (e.g., girls/women can’t clean sacrament trays, fill the font, drive a deacon on a fast offering route, etc.; nobody but a teacher or priest may touch the sacrament sheets, etc.).

I am fascinated by the phenomenon of the UOoT taking on a life of its own, which I have experienced in wards in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Illinois (Chicago area), Germany, and France. I am currently in my fifth year as a bishop, and prior to this served as a counselor in two other bishoprics. My father is also currently a bishop (he’s in his 6^th year), my uncle has been a stake president and returned this summer from three years as a mission president. Both of my grandfathers were bishops, and one was also in a stake presidency. I mention this merely as background ----- in my family, I have had a lot of exposure to priesthood leaders and discussed many of the same doctrinal and procedural things we discuss here.

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. I found this amusing, because to me that is one of the key components of holding priesthood keys: the authority and ability to act in the absence of having everything spelled out in detail (i.e., not having to be commanded in all things). Where the handbook does not specifically command or prohibit, that’s where initiative and inspiration come in. In most cases, in my experience, invoking UOoT is an attempt to impose preferred conditions or courses of action that are outside of the handbooks, the compelling authority being a self-evident “unwritten order of things.”

It is these things that have the potential for drift over time, such as my father witnessed on then-Elder Monson’s historical trip to Görlitz (then in the DDR). My father, as a missionary in the North German Mission, was assigned to be his driver, and one of the things Elder Monson encountered and corrected were myriads of “little” things that well-meaning priesthood leaders had instituted as UOoT (candles on the sacrament table, etc.). I see many of the favorite UOoT from well-meaning local leaders and members as having the same potential.

Some examples:

1) A counselor in our stake presidency insists on sitting in the bishop’s seat (second seat over from the pulpit controls) when visiting (the stake president himself does not ---- he sits in the “deacon’s” seat –--- all the way to the side, and has the bishopric continue to sit together). This same counselor is a stickler for many other little things like this, such as absolutely nobody sitting behind the sacrament table after the sacrament, worlds without end. He’s brought it up in cases of people sitting and waiting to bear their testimonies, primary programs, etc. I have continued to let people sit there.

2) A bishop I was a counselor to wanted to pass the sacrament with his son when he received the Aaronic priesthood. A horrified high councilor told him he couldn’t do this because he had to preside. I pointed out that he isn’t presiding any less if he’s passing the sacrament than if he’s sitting in the front, but he specifically said that this would violate the UOoT. He ended up passing the sacrament with his son.

Each of us could list zillions of examples from our own experience. As I have witnessed these, I can’t help but think that a contributing factor to the Great Apostasy was the cumulative effect of UOoT changes made by well-meaning bishops, elders, and priests in the absence of apostolic, corrective authority. I think many/most of these men were doing the best that they could, but changes and drift crept in.

Thoughts?

[LeSellers]

We were visiting our son's ward which has as a member, the stake president. This Sunday, the president's son had been ordained a deacon, and the stake president passed the Sacrament with his son. It's an "UOoT" in our stake that fathers (when worthy and ordained themselves) minister with their sons in their first assignment in this way.

Lehi

[Calm]

I love that idea.

[Cobalt-70]

What I get concerned about is when the various things that have become the "unwritten order of things" gradually get codified in the CHI, for no particular reason. When I was in college, I had a bishop that specifically directed those that are passing the sacrament not to pass to the bishop first. He believed, and I agreed with him, that the bishop is the servant of the ward, and that granting him that "honor" was unbecoming of the nature of his office. Now, that practice is written in the CHI, so that no bishop can apparently do otherwise. Is this just "instruction creep"? Why does this have to be codified? If it isn't required by scripture or by solidly-established theological principles, why not just let each bishop do what he thinks is appropriate?

[LeSellers]

I had a bishop that specifically directed those that are passing the sacrament not to pass to the bishop first. He believed, and I agreed with him, that the bishop is the servant of the ward, and that granting him that "honor" was unbecoming of the nature of his office.

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

[Calm]

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

I am surprised that this is not mentioned in the Handbook (handing it first to the bishop or a stake leader who is presiding is mentioned, just not the reason so Cobalt' bishop was violating the Written Order of Things). This was the instruction I was told way back when of why it was done. Do you know of any reference that states this?

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[LeSellers]

Do you know of any reference that states this?

Nothing I can cite.

But it is a very rational perspective, and addresses/answers a lot of question people may have about the Priesthood, keys, and so on, not to mention the relationship between the bishop (or other presiding authority) and the Sacrament. He is the Presiding High Priest—with direct reference to the sacrifices in the Jewish Temples. We don't often get into discussion about how Priesthood keys work; we mostly talk about the need for Priesthood, per se, not the Lord's involvement in each ordinance through the keys He restored.

Lehi

Edited March 14, 2012 by LeSellers

[Duncan]

Nothing I can cite.

But it is a very rational perspective, and addresses/answers a lot of question people may have about the Priesthood, keys, and so on, not to mention the relationship between the bishop (or other presiding authority) and the Sacrament. We don't often get into discussion about how Priesthood keys work; we mostly talk about the need for Priesthood, per se, not the Lord's involvement in each ordinance through the keys He restored.

Lehi

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

Its my understanding that this wasn't always so and has only existed from about 1920 to the present, correct me if I wrong but. Also Why have a presiding authority other then the bishop if he holds the keys for the sacrament? If a counselor in the stake pres.is present with the bishop also there then the bishop according to this view holds the keys but isn't presiding, shouldn't it be the stake pres. member?

[KevinG]

I have a short answer for why we have an unwritten order of things...

In short it may not be for doctrinal purposes that we do something - but if it makes those attending our meetings and worshipping more comfortable and receptive to the spirit then its a good idea. (ex. white shirts and ties on Deacons passing the sacrament, fathers being responsible for removing noisy children from the chapel, not having a ward potluck during a neighboring wards fast meeting...)

[Calm]

Its my understanding that this wasn't always so and has only existed from about 1920 to the present, correct me if I wrong but. Also Why have a presiding authority other then the bishop if he holds the keys for the sacrament? If a counselor in the stake pres.is present with the bishop also there then the bishop according to this view holds the keys but isn't presiding, shouldn't it be the stake pres. member?

Also this:

“In ward meetings such as priesthood meeting, Sunday School, and sacrament meeting, the bishop is the presidng officer. In the bishop’s absence his first counselor presides. If they are both absent, the second counselor presides. If a General Authority or a member of the stake presidency visits a meeting, the member of the bishopric conducts under the direction of the visiting higher authority. A high councilor, visiting a ward as an official representative from the stake presidency, does not take over the presiding authority of the bishop.

“The sacrament should be given first to the highest Church authority who sits on the stand and then passed to all others in an orderly way. A high councilor visiting a ward as an official representative of the stake presidency and sitting on the stand should be recognized by receiving the sacrament first, unless a General Authority or a member of the stake presidency is present on the stand. It is not necessary to recognize a high councilor while attending his own ward in an unofficial capacity, although there is no objection to such courtesy being extended to him.”

http://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/12/policies-and-procedures?lang=eng

[Calm]

I have a short answer for why we have an unwritten order of things...

In short it may not be for doctrinal purposes that we do something - but if it makes those attending our meetings and worshipping more comfortable and receptive to the spirit then its a good idea. (ex. white shirts and ties on Deacons passing the sacrament, fathers being responsible for removing noisy children from the chapel, not having a ward potluck during a neighboring wards fast meeting...)

If the UWOT contributes to a feeling of sacred space, I don't see it as an issue as long as people recognize this is what they are doing. It is when the UWOT actually interferes with the spirit or is insisted not as an aid, but as a rule that there begins to be trouble about it and one needs to take care to remove the "foolish traditions".

[KevinG]

If the UWOT contributes to a feeling of sacred space, I don't see it as an issue as long as people recognize this is what they are doing. It is when the UWOT actually interferes with the spirit or is insisted not as an aid, but as a rule that there begins to be trouble about it and one needs to take care to remove the "foolish traditions".

Well put!! - I wish I had added that to my comments. In the end the golden rule should be whatever brings us unto Christ without disrtacting from that persuit.

Bishops, Stake Presidents and Auxilliary Leaders have a delicate balancing act between extremes in behavior and expectations.

This is completely different from brother or sister "so-and-so" deciding it is their business to steady the ward arc by acting as self appointed police of the Unwritten Order of Things. Unless it was the Bishop or Missionaries that corrected Duncan for asking a sister to watch the font it was not their business.

Edited March 14, 2012 by KevinG

[Duncan]

Also this:

http://www.lds.org/n...edures?lang=eng

good-o!

[LeSellers]

Why have a presiding authority other then the bishop if he holds the keys for the sacrament? If a counselor in the stake pres.is present with the bishop also there then the bishop according to this view holds the keys but isn't presiding, shouldn't it be the stake pres. member?

The Presiding High Priest is in charge of the Sacrament. It's his responsibility to assure that the ordinance is done correctly. It is through his authority that is is done in the first place. Bishops serve under the Stake President, and are operating through the latter's keys.

Ultimately all ordinances, including the Sacrament in each ward or even in homes for shut-ins, etc., are done under the authority of Thomas S. Monson and then up to Jesus Christ. He (or they) hold the keys to all Priesthood functions. We do them in His name under His direction, but through the living line of authority of those who hold the keys of the Priesthood.

Lehi

[KevinG]

The Presiding High Priest is in charge of the Sacrament. It's his responsibility to assure that the ordinance is done correctly. It is through his authority that is is done in the first place. Bishops serve under the Stake President, and are operating through the latter's keys.

Ultimately all ordinances, including the Sacrament in each ward or even in homes for shut-ins, etc., are done under the authority of Thomas S. Monson and then up to Jesus Christ. He (or they) hold the keys to all Priesthood functions. We do them in His name under His direction, but through the living line of authority of those who hold the keys of the Priesthood.

Lehi

Yes - but that is the written order of things.

I think areas like filling the font and who cleans the trays may fall outside of the clear policy statements. Nevertheless it is up to the local church authorities to guide what happens in their sphere of authority - not a busybody sister or brother who thinks they are in authority to correct a fellow Saint outside of their stewardship.

[Calm]

steady the ward arc

Psssttt! "ark", not "arc" (just slipping in here so Lehi doesn't feel compelled to do so)

[LeSellers]

I think areas like filling the font and who cleans the trays may fall outside of the clear policy statements. Nevertheless it is up to the local church authorities to guide what happens in their sphere of authority - not a busybody sister or brother who thinks they are in authority to correct a fellow Saint outside of their stewardship.

Wasn't that topic shut down?

Lehi

[Calm]

Wasn't that topic shut down?

Lehi

Yep, because someone succumbed to busybodiness and started making personal remarks about the faithfulness of another.....

[KevinG]

Psssttt! "ark", not "arc" (just slipping in here so Lehi doesn't feel compelled to do so)

Repenting now! Sorry Le - I imagine I just set your teeth on edge.

Cannon = canon

Ark = Arc

At least I got the sound right.

[ksfisher]

Also this:

http://www.lds.org/n...edures?lang=eng

The handbook does say that a high councilor does not receive that sacrament first. While a high councilor represents the stake presidency, he does not hold any of the keys that is held by that presidency. A high councilor does not preside at a sacrament meeting.

[cinepro]

Sheesh folks. Here's what the Church Handbook of Instructions Says:

Following the hymn, the person who blesses the bread kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the bread. The sacrament prayers were revealed by the Lord (see D&C 20:77, 79; Moroni 4–5). The bishop makes sure they are spoken clearly, accurately, and with dignity. If the person who blesses the sacrament makes an error in the wording but corrects it himself, no further correction is required. If the person does not correct an error, the bishop indicates that he should repeat the prayer correctly. In doing so, the bishop should be careful to avoid causing embarrassment or distracting from the sacred nature of the ordinance.

After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first.

Even a very fertile bishop wouldn't need to pass the sacrament under these circumstances more than a few times in his life. I mean, how often does a Bishop have a son turn 12? I have a relative who has been a Bishop twice, and has seven sons, but even then he was only Bishop for two of his sons when they turned 12. So out of the 260 weeks that a guy's usually a Bishop, maybe once or twice he sits with the deacons and passes the Sacrament. Seriously.

Luckily, I live in an unusually perceptive and intelligent ward, and so we would probably be able to figure out that if we saw the Bishop stand with the Deacons and commence passing the Sacrament, he is probably satisfied that the prayer was said properly and everyone is worthy. He may have even delegated the prayer-monitoring duty to a counselor for that week, since he's allowed to do that. But I can understand that there might be Wards out there that couldn't figure this out and it might get a little confusing.

We even had a Sacrament Meeting once where the whole Bishopric was gone and the High Priest Group leader presided. I was worried about what might happen to the Ward members that couldn't figure out what was going on, and that there might even be some outbursts or trauma. Things went pretty smoothly, but like I said, we're a pretty smart ward, and we're quick to understand things like that.

Edited March 14, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

And another thing. This theory also ignores reality because it doesn't even work.

And why doesn't it work? Because there isn't a Bishop on this planet that is going to sit there quietly after the prayer has been said wrong, wait for the deacons to get their bread or water trays and walk to their positions, until the first deacon gets to him at which point he does....what? Just sits there? Whispers to the deacon that the prayer was said wrong, so all the deacons have to walk their trays back for the prayer to be said again?

No, if the priests miss the "Do it again" signal, then by the time the deacons are picking up their trays, the Bishop is going to be waving frantically or walking across the rostrum to tell them to do it again. The Bishop's signal for "Everything is ok" isn't taking the Sacrament first. It's him sitting quietly after the prayer while the deacons pick up the trays.

That's why LeSeller's theory is "subtle" and "unwritten". Because it isn't true.

And if there is a "mistake" in the Sacrament to the point that the ordinance is invalid, then there is no punishment or responsibility to be meted out. If it was just done wrong, then God gets to decide if He's going to accept it or not. If He does accept it, then no harm-no foul. If He doesn't, then a Ward has missed out on whatever benefits the Sacrament would have given them this week and they'll do it right the next week. In that case, it was just a ceremonial distribution of small pieces of bread and little cups of water. There is no sin and no "punishment" for a well-intentioned but accidentally mis-performed ordinance.

Edited March 15, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

What I get concerned about is when the various things that have become the "unwritten order of things" gradually get codified in the CHI, for no particular reason. When I was in college, I had a bishop that specifically directed those that are passing the sacrament not to pass to the bishop first. He believed, and I agreed with him, that the bishop is the servant of the ward, and that granting him that "honor" was unbecoming of the nature of his office. Now, that practice is written in the CHI, so that no bishop can apparently do otherwise. Is this just "instruction creep"? Why does this have to be codified? If it isn't required by scripture or by solidly-established theological principles, why not just let each bishop do what he thinks is appropriate?

When I first joined the church I thought that was weird too. I thought the bishop should be last.

[mfbukowski]

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

When I was bishop I just gave whoever was blessing the sacrament a nod or a shake of the head. That seemed to work fine, but I see your point.

[mfbukowski]

I am surprised that this is not mentioned in the Handbook (handing it first to the bishop or a stake leader who is presiding is mentioned, just not the reason so Cobalt' bishop was violating the Written Order of Things). This was the instruction I was told way back when of why it was done. Do you know of any reference that states this?

I think it might be in book 1, but I don't remember. I had to give mine up.