269 replies to this topic

[wenglund]

Cobalt-70, on 15 March 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Either bishops are inspired or they are not. If a bishop is not inspired, then you have a much bigger problem that is not going to be solved by codifying and mandating every last detail of everything they do.

Ah, yes...a view of the world through a black/white lens. I can't help but smile when flexibility is presented in such a rigid way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

I found this thread quite entertaining, and felt inspired to throw out a little anecdote.

When I was growing up in Sandy, Utah, Marvin J. Ashton’s son lived in our ward.  Whenever one of Elder Ashton’s grandchildren was blessed, baptized, or reached any other milestone for which you are recognized in sacrament meeting, the apostle attended our ward.  Interestingly, he always sat with his family in the congregation.

The unwritten order of things contains the gem, “The one who presides in a meeting should sit on the stand and sit close to the one conducting.”  The bishop always recognized Elder Ashton in the congregation, and, according to Elder Ashton’s explicit instructions, clarified that Elder Ashton was not presiding in the meeting.

So the next time you are the presiding priesthood leader in a meeting and would rather sit with your family, all you need to do is delegate the role of presiding leader to somebody else, and you are free to sit where you want.  Even the unwritten order of things has loopholes.

Edited by Analytics, 01 May 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

Glad to see that this thread is still open, though the last post was over a month ago. I have something to add.

At our fathers-and-sons outing last weekend, a member of the stake high council spoke to us and gave a recollection that I think is quite germane to some of the content on this thread.

He said he grew up in the same ward in Salt Lake where one of the General Authorities attended. (He gave the name of the GA, who is now deceased, but since this is secondhand, I won't disclose the name.)

Reportedly, the GA was in the habit of showing up 15 minutes early every Sunday for sacrament meeting. (He was older, so he didn't have assignments that took him out of town every week; perhaps he already had emeritus status by then.) On one occasion, a ward member asked him why he always came so early. His reported reply: "I want to be early for the most important thing I do all week."

Food for thought, especially when contrasted with the story given on this thread about the individual who came too late to sacrament meeting to receive the sacrament and then insisted it be served to her after the meeting had concluded.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 06 June 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[DBMormon]

In regards to Melchizadek PH holders always being the concluding speaker.  Leaders in the past in the Stake have asked that we conform to this request... While I have done so, It has bothered me a bunch.  Is there any actual church guideline or reason or history or other valid reason this should not be considered a false teaching/ urban legend that prevails along with others throughout the church?  

your thoughts.  

Edited by reelmormon, 06 June 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

reelmormon, on 06 June 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

In regards to Melchizadek PH holders always being the concluding speaker.  Leaders in the past in the Stake have asked that we conform to this request... While I have done so, It has bothered me a bunch.  Is there any actual church guideline or reason or history or other valid reason this should not be considered a false teaching/ urban legend that prevails along with others throughout the church?  

your thoughts.  

If it's a directive that comes from your stake leaders, it occurs to me they are the ones you should be asking.

[DBMormon]

scott, I had expressed my opinion when it came up in the past and stated that it seems to be a false teaching or false doctrine that some in the church have permitted to linger.  They saw it as valid.  I am curious to what validation it might have.  They had no evidence of it just that was the way it was for them.

[bluebell]

I've never heard of such a thing, and remember being in wards where a sister was the last one to speak.

When i was in high school, i remember there being a bit of an uproar in my ward in wyoming because 'someone' (I honestly dont' remember if the directive came from the bishop, the stake, or SLC) declared that women could not give closing prayers in sacrament meeting.

Apparently that teaching didn't stick, because i've been in lots of wards where women give the benediction all the time.  

[DBMormon]

I wish it and others like it would dissapear

what is it called when a false teaching or false doctrine makes it's way itno the church and seems to hang around because it sounds right or seems to have always been done that way and yet is false.  I was thinking there was a name for it.

[CASteinman]

reelmormon, on 06 June 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

While I have done so, It has bothered me a bunch.  Is there any actual church guideline or reason or history or other valid reason this should not be considered a false teaching/ urban legend that prevails along with others throughout the church?

Seems to me that it is possible to spend a lot of time in useless burdening of the soul in being "bothered" "a bunch" in such thing things.  However, the instructions the Church has issued regarding the Sacrament Meetings do not include such requirements as far as I can tell.

[mfbukowski]

I would check manual 1- it seems to me its in there.   Has anybody checked manual 2?

[DBMormon]

MFBukowski  -  nothing in there on brethren having to be concluding speakers.  I am intimately familiar with both on the subject of sacrament meetings.

[Yep]

Upon reading through much of this thread I came to the conclusion that we are definitely not heading towards pharisaism (the over investigation/interpretation of the law.)  I believe that if we were sitting with Christ and the first Twelve and someone suggested something like that Sacrament "must" be given first to the presiding authority there would have been a correction given.  I may be completely off, but I don't feel that most of these are really following the spirit of the gospel as Christ taught it.  Are we heading towards a time when we will only be able to travel the distance from our home to our ward house on the Sabbath?

By way of an example:

My son who was a teacher did not have a white shirt.  We were very tight financially and splurging on another shirt so that he had a white shirt was a luxury we could not afford.  Our Bishop told him he could not help prepare the Sacrament until he had one.  We had not been active for a few years and were just coming back to Church and he had just barely decided that he felt worthy to help.  This made him question his worthiness again.

[Nominee]

LeSellers, on 14 March 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

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

One of the most sacred moments in sacrament for me is when the priesthood holder giving the prayer then looks to the bishop for the okay before we proceed. The respect shown for the presiding priesthood authority means a lot to me and builds my testimony for the power of the priesthood each week.


~ Naomi

[mfbukowski]

Yep, on 08 June 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Upon reading through much of this thread I came to the conclusion that we are definitely not heading towards pharisaism (the over investigation/interpretation of the law.)  I believe that if we were sitting with Christ and the first Twelve and someone suggested something like that Sacrament "must" be given first to the presiding authority there would have been a correction given.  I may be completely off, but I don't feel that most of these are really following the spirit of the gospel as Christ taught it.  Are we heading towards a time when we will only be able to travel the distance from our home to our ward house on the Sabbath?

By way of an example:

My son who was a teacher did not have a white shirt.  We were very tight financially and splurging on another shirt so that he had a white shirt was a luxury we could not afford.  Our Bishop told him he could not help prepare the Sacrament until he had one.  We had not been active for a few years and were just coming back to Church and he had just barely decided that he felt worthy to help.  This made him question his worthiness again.

Your bishop unfortunately is human.  Best wishes in finding anyone who is not.

Perhaps you should explain that to him and get a clothing order for a few white shirts- problem solved.  And the presiding officer gets sacrament first.  That IS in the manual.

[Nominee]

rongo, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

LOL. I make the bread in my ward every week, and the sisters demanded that I put the recipe in the cookbook our ward put out (yes, it's that good). About a year ago, a sister with celiac disease asked if she could just bring a rice cake in her purse to eat for the sacrament. I told her that it would need to be on the table to be blessed and broken, and she vigorously disagreed. She didn't want it to be a spectacle (the deacons would have to ensure that that tray went to her, and that nobody else ate her item), which made sense. She mentioned a bishop in another ward in the stake who allows "rice cake in a purse," since it's in the room when the prayer is said (so are all the Cheerios, right?)    and provided me with a Deseret News article that talked about the "rice cake in the purse" approach. I told her that that was that bishop's call, but in our ward, the tokens needed to be blessed on the table.I tried a variety of gluten-free breads (garbanzo bean, rice, etc.) so that nobody was singled out ---- everybody would eat the same bread. All were worse than terrible ---- really, really bad. The sister told me to just go ahead and go back to normal bread again and she would just "take the smallest corner off of the smalles piece," but I needed to dispel the reputation that I make terrible bread, so I started bringing fresh french bread (I bake bread 3-5 times a week in my home, anyway, so it's not a big deal at all). Now, it's habit and routine.

The left-over bread is a favorite in the priest's quorum during the third hour . . .

By the way ---- the sister turns out not to have celiac disease after all, according to her. As I suspected all along, it was kind of a power struggle over her wanting to do "rice cake in a purse." There's no way we're going back to dollar loaves of bread now . . . I would have a riot on my hands . . .  

May I have your recipe, PLEASE?

~ Naomi

[Nominee]

mercyngrace, on 15 March 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

The gospel has the power to overcome our upbringing. In a very real sense, becoming the seed of Christ means relinquishing the traditions of our fathers, even the well meaning ones, and being re-parented.

*huge sigh* And praise the Lord for that!

[mfbukowski]

Nominee
Ironically neither Lehi nor Mercy have posted here recently so don't feel offended if your posts go unanswered.

[Nominee]

mfbukowski, on 08 June 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

Nominee
Ironically neither Lehi nor Mercy have posted here recently so don't feel offended if your posts go unanswered.

Yeah I noticed I'm about 13 pages behind everyone else here. Ha ha! I have been wrapped up in another thread. I am trying not to post until I catch up but sometimes it gets the best of me and I just can't help it! Bear with me.

[Carborendum]

Three events with regard to written and unwritten orders pop out in my mind.

First, I was a missionary watching (not witnessing) the baptism of a Spanish speaking family.  The elder performing the baptism was actually a Portuguese speaker, but was unpracticed in both the prayer and in Portuguese.  I had enough French and Spanish background to recognize he was saying the prayer wrong.  I went to the witnesses and the Bishop present and told them that he had said the prayer wrong.  They waved me off saying that I didn't realize he was just speaking Portuguese instead of Spanish.  I assured them that I understood better than they did.  It went nowhere.  In the end, I had to accept that I was not the one in authority to make any corrections to this.

Second, I was in the circle where a recently reactivated father was confirming his daughter.  It became all to apparent that this father had been inactive far too long.  He said,"I give you the Gift of the Holy Ghost".  After the prayer was over, I told the bishop of the error.  He just let it go for the time being so that things wouldn't be disturbed too much.  But later, he called the father and daughter into his office and had him redo the confirmation with correct instruction.

Third, one teacher showed up to prepare the sacrament.  I was the quorum instructor.  The teacher asked me to help prepare it.  We had set the bread out and were in the process of getting the water out when I found one of the YM counselors removing several pieces of bread from the trays and putting them back in the bag.  There was quite an altercation between the teacher and the counselor.  While I agreed with the counselor's reasoning for using fewer pieces of bread, I saw his act as putting forth his hand to steady the ark.  So, I supported the teacher's decision to replace the bread back on the trays.

The YM president has no keys of the priesthood and therefore cannot direct any changes. Yet he took it upon himself to do so.  In the next class, I expressed the need to have a true priesthood quorum meeting with instruction rather than just a business meeting.  I read from the CHI.  I explained to the quorum president what had happened.  He agreed with the counselor and gave instructions to follow that counsel in the future.  That may have made him feel vindicated.  But the point was made that he had gone about it the wrong way.

[mfbukowski]

We are taught in the temple that we should correct the patrons once with kindness if they make errors in repeating the correct words and then let it go.

We are also taught that the Lord makes up for such errors and it is better to act in kindness and with the spirit than to get it "right" with a spirit of rancor.