He means well. He really does. He sees himself as preserving purity of the UOoT in the face of devastating shifting and changes.
we have a guy like that in our stake. He has never been in a bishopric or on the HC or in a stake pres. mostly because those that know him don't like him but he thinks he is some big wig and certaintly acts like it, now he is the building scheduler and is giving people, like me, grief over that aspect. He treats his wife disrespectfully and why she puts up with him is beyond me
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
It also makes me wonder how they were parented. I know my share of apostates who could not conceive of a loving Father in Heaven who respects our agency, much less earthly church leaders who respect agency because of the way they were treated by parents. In fact I think it is a more common cause of apostacy (or loss of faith) than individual sin. Sad.
This is so very true!
Tolerance for ambiguity is also a measurable psychological trait which appears to be inversely proportional to authoritarianism. The more fundamentalist one is, the more likely that you have an authoritarian personality, often highly correlated with an authoritarian up bringing.
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah
This is so very true!
Tolerance for ambiguity is also a measurable psychological trait which appears to be inversely proportional to authoritarianism. The more fundamentalist one is, the more likely that you have an authoritarian personality, often highly correlated with an authoritarian up bringing.
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.
Mitius imperanti melius paretur
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
The bishop's (or other's) taking the sacrament first symbolizes his approval of the ordinance he presides over. The fact that he may (and nearly always does) let the officiators know "so far, so good" is not the symbol to the ward/congregation members know that he, based on his holding the presiding keys for that ordinance, assumes all responsibility for the form of the Sacrament.
For the case at hand (with a Bishop passing the Sacrament with the Deacons), why wouldn't either of these scenarios fulfill your symbolic needs?
1. The Bishop delegates the role of overseeing the ordinance to another member of the Bishopric, and they take it first.
2. The Bishop takes the Sacrament first at the time that the priests hand him the tray.
At the last supper, somehow Jesus was able to bless and pass the sacrament while at the same time making sure it was done properly. So there is no rule that a person that is involved with its administration can't also ensure it is done properly. Assuming Jesus hadn't asked Peter to make sure He said the prayer right, and the other apostles didn't wait for Peter to take the bread first before they were comfortable that the ordinance had been done correctly.
Either way, someone is making sure everything is done properly just as much as if the Bishop were sitting on the stand.
And with the Bishop passing the Sacrament, that has the added benefit of reducing the likelihood of an unworthy Deacon passing the Sacrament.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,871 posts
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:03 AM
rongo, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:
and provided me with a Deseret News article that talked about the "rice cake in the purse" approach.
Do you have a cite or link to the Deseret News article? It seems weird to me that the Deseret News would carry such a thing.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
It's the bring-your-own-and-pull-it-out-of-your-purse thing that strikes me as odd.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,871 posts
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:14 AM
rongo, on 15 March 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:
I would have to search for it online myself. It wasn't an article per se, if I recall, but rather a blog or commentary.
Do you recall if it was in the print edition or was it an on-line printout?
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
It never gets to the point of the bishop shaking his head to a deacon holding a tray out to him. The bishop makes them re-do the ordinance long before it reaches that point.
I think both this and Lehi's points are good ones. The fact is that if one waited until the deacon offered the bishop the sacrament, some people would probably already have partaken,(in wards with many converts in growth areas many don't know the bishop is supposed to "go first" and even if the deacons have been well instructed, they often make mistakes) and the result would be chaos.
On the other hand I can see Lehi's point about the bishop symbolically ratifying the ordinance by being the first to partake.
At least that is a better explanation for the bishop being the first to partake than just some honorific role, when he is supposed to be the servant of all.
As a convert this "unwritten order of things" is always a thorn in my side precisely because converts "don't get" what is unwritten. That is the problem with these cultural mores we are supposed to adhere to that converts are not likely to even know they exist, in my opinion.
I always had a "lifer" in my bishopric, which in my area is not easy, (we have many converts in a small ward with a limited number of eligible Melchizadek Priesthood holders) precisely to advise me on the customs which were not in the manual. It was kind of frustrating, to be honest!
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah
Do you recall if it was in the print edition or was it an on-line printout?
Definitely an online print-out. I want to say that it was more of a blog or commentary, along the lines of "Utah living and issues," etc. It was emailed to her by a member of the other ward whose bishop allows "rice cake in a purse." Again, I have no quarrel with other bishops making executive decisions for their wards, it's just "as for me and my house, we will bless the emblems on the table."
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,871 posts
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:28 AM
rongo, on 15 March 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:
Definitely an online print-out. I want to say that it was more of a blog or commentary, along the lines of "Utah living and issues," etc. It was emailed to her by a member of the other ward whose bishop allows "rice cake in a purse." Again, I have no quarrel with other bishops making executive decisions for their wards, it's just "as for me and my house, we will bless the emblems on the table."
That's the problem when such things get written down -- either in print or online. They get passed around and shortly become pseudo-law. That's why we need handbooks and priesthood correlation, I suppose.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 15 March 2012 - 10:31 AM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
That's the problem when such things get written down -- either in print or online. They get passed around and shortly become pseudo-law.
That's how it was used, too. As a "see ---- this is what wards in Utah are doing!" lever. The sister was very unhappy with my insistence that whatever we use be blessed and broken on the table, and brought to her. I tried to bake gluten-free loaves, but they were really, really bad. I feel for people who really can't use wheat products.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,871 posts
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:57 AM
rongo, on 15 March 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
That's how it was used, too. As a "see ---- this is what wards in Utah are doing!" lever.
"Wards in Utah" was it? Well you can tell her for me, as a charter member of [Darned] Utah Mormons, that we intend to retain exclusive claim on our quirky behavior, thank-you-very-much!
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
This is just your interpretation, though, Lehi. Others, who similarly feel that the bishop nodding to the blesser constitutes approval of the ordinance, are on as solid of ground. While you are welcome to your view, I don't think you can say dogmatically that it is the act of taking the sacrament (and only then) that constitutes acceptance of the ordinance. At least, you can say it dogmatically, but others don't have to dogmatically accept it . . .
It never gets to the point of the bishop shaking his head to a deacon holding a tray out to him. The bishop makes them re-do the ordinance long before it reaches that point.
I agree. I think Rongo is adding his own additional layer of meaning to the ordinance. That's fine, if it's for his own benefit, but it's going too far to claim that that is "what it actually means" to the Church or anybody else.
"Start each day with a smile--that way you get it over with!" -- Oscar the Grouch
I think that's Lehi adding his interpretation, not Rongo.
Served in the Nevada Las Vegas West Mission: 10/1/2008 - 10/5/2010
Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning, Satan shudders and says, "Oh Crap...he's awake!"
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.(John 21:25)
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah
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.
There is a large hole in that argument. It is not necessarily the Bishop that gets the sacrament first. When a member of the Stake Presidency or some other presiding officer is present, they get it first. Yet, according to CHI, it is always the Bishop's responsibility to ensure that the ordinance and prayer are performed correctly. Thus, if the Stake President is visiting, the Bishop signs off on the Sacrament prayer, yet the Stake President is honored by getting the Sacrament first.
0
rongo, on 15 March 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:
