How was two hour church?

[Prof]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

Then your ward's not following the Handbook, which says that a white shirt is not required.  

My ward seems to have a lot of problems following the handbook!

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You don't believe that if bishops were allowing an ordinance to be performed incorrectly that the Brethren would intervene?  

As I said, I don’t think the general Church leadership is much into micromanagement. I believe they allow local leadership considerable leeway and subjectivity in implementing broader guidelines in the handbooks. That seems to be the order of things in Church administration. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that Pres. Nelson was talking about little kids running around and playing though, so I'm not sure that's really relevant.  

Especially since we already let them do that on the Sabbath in our buildings in nursery in any case.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that Pres. Nelson was talking about little kids running around and playing though, so I'm not sure that's really relevant.  

Like I said, that is up to the individual to decide. All things in wisdom and moderation.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You don't believe that if bishops were allowing an ordinance to be performed incorrectly that the Brethren would intervene?  

If what was the exception became the rule, the stake president would be the one to make corrections.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

We blessed our son at home. I had family come in from several states. One group came over 1000 miles to be there. I wasn't  going to have them miss it.  

It was also very emotional for my husband and his family. It was the first big family thing to happen after his dad died.    

So the circumstances prevented the gathering to be on a fast Sunday? Was a bishopric member present?

Edited January 8, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, I don’t think the general Church leadership is much into micromanagement. I believe they allow local leadership considerable leeway and subjectivity in implementing broader guidelines in the handbooks. That seems to be the order of things in Church administration. 

I agree, except that I don't see any evidence that they would ever allow hundreds of bishops to perform an ordinance incorrectly.   I think we all understand that the Brethren allow a level of leeway with policies and procedures that they don't allow with ordinances.  As blessing a baby is an ordinance, leeway to perform it incorrectly would be odd.

If it is incorrect for babies to be blessed at home except in the cases of out-of-wedlock babies or sick babies (as Hamba is arguing), then do you really believe that the Brethren would allow local leadership considerable leeway and subjectivity to perform the ordinance incorrectly?

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If what was the exception became the rule, the stake president would be the one to make corrections.

I agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that Pres. Nelson was talking about little kids running around and playing though, so I'm not sure that's really relevant.  

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Especially since we already let them do that on the Sabbath in our buildings in nursery in any case.

The conditions I observed that soured me on after-church “mingles” — and were likely the reason nothing like that was continued in that ward — were considerably worse than anything I’ve ever seen in a typical nursery. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Like I said, that is up to the individual to decide.

I agree.  I also don't think any reasonable individual would interpret Pres. Nelson's remarks to be meant for the three and four year olds though.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, except that I don't see any evidence that they would ever allow hundreds of bishops to perform an ordinance incorrectly.   I think we all understand that the Brethren allow a level of leeway with policies and procedures that they don't allow with ordinances.  As blessing a baby is an ordinance, leeway to perform it incorrectly would be odd.

If it is incorrect for babies to be blessed at home except in the cases of out-of-wedlock babies or sick babies (as Hamba is arguing), then do you really believe that the Brethren would allow local leadership considerable leeway and subjectivity to perform the ordinance incorrectly?

I think they allow local leadership to make that determination within the broad guideline of what ought to be the “norm.”  I wonder how many different ways you want me to say that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I also don't think any reasonable individual would interpret Pres. Nelson's remarks to be meant for the three and four year olds though.

In such instances, I believe accountability rests with parents. 

One normally wouldn’t permit uncontrolled behavior of one’s children while a guest in someone’s home. I believe a comparable principle applies in a dedicated house of the Lord on the  Lord’s day. 

There is a concept in American jurisprudence known as “time, place and manner.” Essentially, it holds that what is permitted at certain times and in certain places can be deemed unacceptable at other times and places. I think we have an analog as pertaining to Church settings and the principle of reverence. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think they allow local leadership to make that determination within the broad guideline of what ought to be the “norm.”  I wonder how many different ways you want me to say that. 

I just never knew that you believed that local leadership can determine the correct way to perform ordinances without oversight from the Brethren so I keep thinking I'm understanding you wrong.   I agree with you that they allow bishops and stake presidents to determine where a baby blessing can legitimately be performed, but that's because I don't believe that doing it at home is wrong (like Hamba does, for example).

If I did believe that there were only two times that a baby blessing could legitimately be performed outside of the chapel on Sunday, then I would disagree with the idea that the Brethren wouldn't intervene in such situations.

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Especially since we already let them do that on the Sabbath in our buildings in nursery in any case.

There are varying degrees of running around and playing. Nursery and Primary are not intended to be free-for-all rumpus rooms. A well-run nursery provides a fun and safe environment for learning. Even about reverence...https://www.lds.org/manual/behold-your-little-ones-nursery-manual/lesson-8-sunday-is-a-day-to-remember-heavenly-father-and-jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In such instances, I believe accountability rests with parents. 

One normally wouldn’t permit uncontrolled behavior of one’s children while a guest in someone’s home. I believe a comparable principle applies in a dedicated house of the Lord on the  Lord’s day. 

There is a concept in American jurisprudence known as “time, place and manner.” Essentially, it holds that what is permitted at certain times and in certain places can be deemed unacceptable at other times and places. I think we have an analog as pertaining to Church settings and the principle of reverence. 

I agree, accountability always rests with the parents.

I disagree that there is an analog as pertaining to the church setting and principles of reverence after church is over and the ward is having a social in the cultural hall.  But, I certainly wasn't there to see the madhouse that you have specifically described during your munch and mingle experience so I won't comment on whether or not those children were behaving inappropriately.  They very well could have been.  I would certainly expect different behavior depending on the age of the child as well.

I was just speaking to the general idea that (young) children should remain reverent on Sundays anytime they are in the church building, regardless of what is going on.  It's that general idea that I don't agree with. I don't see any reason for anyone to remain reverent during a munch and mingle after church is over.  

[Avatar4321]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the Mormon colonies at Manassa and Sanford, Colorado, the community dance hall floor was laid on buggy springs so it bounced when the kids danced! My grand-father and great-grandfather played in bands there.

My grandparents don’t live too far from those. I remember going to Pioneer Day celebrations in Manassa when I was really young

[Avatar4321]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I did hear a parent interacting with their child:

”C’mon, it is time to go home.”

”Noooooo! I do not want to. It is not time yet!!!”

My daughter had a similar reaction 

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

My grandparents don’t live too far from those. I remember going to Pioneer Day celebrations in Manassa when I was really young

Do they live in the San Luis Valley? We may be related.

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was just speaking to the general idea that (young) children should remain reverent on Sundays anytime they are in the church building, regardless of what is going on.  It's that general idea that I don't agree with. I don't see any reason for anyone to remain reverent during a munch and mingle after church is over.  

So anything goes? Of course not. I think we are talking about degrees of reverence. It is not unreasonable to expect some modifications of behavior in certain circumstances.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just never knew that you believed that local leadership can determine the correct way to perform ordinances without oversight from the Brethren so I keep thinking I'm understanding you wrong.   I agree with you that they allow bishops and stake presidents to determine where a baby blessing can legitimately be performed, but that's because I don't believe that doing it at home is wrong (like Hamba does, for example).

If I did believe that there were only two times that a baby blessing could legitimately be performed outside of the chapel on Sunday, then I would disagree with the idea that the Brethren wouldn't intervene in such situations.

The message I get from the handbook guidelines that have been quoted here is that the Church leaders desire that baby blessings be routinely conducted in front of a sacrament meeting congregation and not in some other setting.  They have been generous enough to allow for exceptions under extenuating circumstances, but I feel such allowance ought not be abused. If, as you say, exceptions are being allowed in hundreds or even thousands of instances, that strikes me as too often. But I’m not going to fault the Brethren for not intervening. We have the instruction in the handbooks based on scripture, so we as a people have been taught correct principles; it is up to us to govern ourselves.  

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We have the instruction in the handbooks based on scripture

Where in scripture is guidance on baby blessings and naming that has shaped the handbook?

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly, but why does he intervene? Because the sacrament is his priesthood responsibility. This is inescapable. If I want to administer the sacrament to an elderly shut-in (as I did twice this past Sunday), whose permission do I need? And why?

And it many wards, busy bishops ask the Young Men presidents to do similar work, but as we've been repeatedly trained and reminded, this is wrong.

Is there something wrong with the bishop delegating this responsibility?

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In all instances, including those in which an exception is granted, it must be under the direction of the bishopric. 

The Exception for children who are ill says the bishop can be told immediately after

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The Exception for children who are ill says the bishop can be told immediately after

In the case of a critically ill child the handbook says that a Melchizedek Priesthood holder may perform the blessing without previous authorization from the bishop.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The message I get from the handbook guidelines that have been quoted here is that the Church leaders desire that baby blessings be routinely conducted in front of a sacrament meeting congregation and not in some other setting.  They have been generous enough to allow for exceptions under extenuating circumstances, but I feel such allowance ought not be abused. If, as you say, exceptions are being allowed in hundreds or even thousands of instances, that strikes me as too often. But I’m not going to fault the Brethren for not intervening. We have the instruction in the handbooks based on scripture, so we as a people have been taught correct principles; it is up to us to govern ourselves.  

I completely agree.