Jump to content
bsjkki

How was two hour church?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think we are talking about degrees of reverence. It is not unreasonable to expect some modifications of behavior in certain circumstances.

I agree.  But I don't believe that we need to remain reverent (as we typically use the word in church) during a munch and mingle after church.  Laughter, chatter, exuberance (especially be the kids) seems reasonable in those circumstances.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

 

Alamosa

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  But I don't believe that we need to remain reverent (as we typically use the word in church) during a munch and mingle after church.  Laughter, chatter, exuberance (especially be the kids) seems reasonable in those circumstances.  

Then I think our disagreement may be merely a matter of differing definitions. 

I don’t believe reverence necessarily in all cases entails silence and cessation of motion. To me, reverence at its core is a feeling of profound respect, love, veneration, and appreciation for that we hold sacred. This might be manifested in a variety of ways depending on time, place and circumstances. It could be exuberant, even unrestrained, though never disorderly or out of control or out of keeping with the occasion or inconsiderate to others. 

The Lord told the Saints through Brigham Young at Winter Quarters: “If thou art merry, praise the Lord with singing, with music, with dancing, and with a prayer of praise and thanksgiving.” (D&C 136:28). 

I believe the behavior He had in mind in that verse was reverent behavior, though not as we ordinarily might think of reverence. 

We are reverent when we give the Hosanna Shout at temple dedications or sing “The Hosanna Anthem,” or sing hymns joyfully on other occasions. We can be reverent even at a Church social or Church dance, though not in the way some might ordinarily think of reverence. 

I know reverence when I see it, and it is not always “just quietly sitting,” as the words of the Primary song put it. But what I observed after church that day at the “linger longer” was obviously not reverent, according to the definition I’ve given here. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

OK. But if it is mandatory the bishop be told immediately after, I would argue it is still, in effect, under his direction. By contrast, I can give a blessing of healing to one of my family members and I don’t even have to inform the bishop, much less seek his approval before or after the fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

yes. Our good friend was there. He was in the bishopric.  We couldn't do it on Fast sunday. We didn't do it on a Sunday. We blessed him on a Saturday.  It was a day when all his family could be there. 

      It was a long and hard time to have him. He was also born 2 months after his grandfather died. It was a very emotional and special time for our family. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours 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.  

If I could offer a differing point of view here, I don't think the handbook prescribes where a baby blessing should take place.  What it does is state that:

"Children are normally named and blessed during fast and testimony meeting in the ward where the parents are members of record."

 

This differs in tone and language from, say, the instructions as to when and where converts are confirmed.

"Converts are confirmed in any sacrament meeting in the ward where they live, preferably on the Sunday following their baptism. Converts are not confirmed at the baptismal service."

In this case the policy says where it is to happen, when, and where it is not to happen.

 

While I think we should make every effort to do things "normally," I don't think it is anything that we need to spend too much time on.  The main reason I can think of to do it in sacrament meeting is out of respect for the bishops time.  If there is a reason and if the bishop is able I don't see any reason, and there certainly is no doctrinal reason, why a blessing cannot take place elsewhere.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think we do. Everyone looks forward to a ward family's baby blessing. When a family shows up at church with a newborn, everyone asks when the blessing will be.

My sister had a baby at 17. Horrifying enough but this was 80s and she dared to keep her son.  People treated her so bad. She quit coming to church because of it.  My dad talked her into blessing my nephew. We were all there at church, the baby's dad and his family( who were very anti the church because of how my sister had been treated). Right before church was to start the Bishop came and said that they couldn't allow us to bless the baby during Sacrament meeting.  We had made it look too easy and it set a bad example.  

 My sister left with my nephew crying. My mom's best friend stopped her. I don't know all that she said, but I know she said not to let them win.   

It was agreed to bless the baby right after Sacrament in the Relief Society room.  Family only. Word got out and most of ward came. There was no standing room and people stood in the hall to be there.  It was an amazing thing for my sister and our family to have that support.

   The bishop looked very mad and upset by what happened.    He was a good friend of my dad's.  It hurt their realtionship  for a long time. The Bishop came later and apologized to my sister and our family. 

I am beyond grateful for those in that ward that looked forward to his blessing and wanted to be apart of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If I could offer a differing point of view here, I don't think the handbook prescribes where a baby blessing should take place.  What it does is state that:

"Children are normally named and blessed during fast and testimony meeting in the ward where the parents are members of record."

 

This differs in tone and language from, say, the instructions as to when and where converts are confirmed.

"Converts are confirmed in any sacrament meeting in the ward where they live, preferably on the Sunday following their baptism. Converts are not confirmed at the baptismal service."

In this case the policy says where it is to happen, when, and where it is not to happen.

 

While I think we should make every effort to do things "normally," I don't think it is anything that we need to spend too much time on.  The main reason I can think of to do it in sacrament meeting is out of respect for the bishops time.  If there is a reason and if the bishop is able I don't see any reason, and there certainly is no doctrinal reason, why a blessing cannot take place elsewhere.

Thanks for your point of view, but I see this as a distinction without a difference. If it is to take place in fast and testimony meeting in the members’ ward of record,  that certainly implies a specific location. And it doesn’t go into reasons. It just says that’s what “normally” should happen. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It just says that’s what “normally” should happen.

And I think we should do what is normally done.  But the handbook does not prescribe where it should happen, it just states what normally happens, nor do the scriptures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But the handbook does not prescribe where it should happen, it just states what normally happens, nor do the scriptures.

'Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name' (D&C 20:70, emphasis added).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

I am beyond grateful for those in that ward that looked forward to his blessing and wanted to be apart of it.

Thanks for sharing your experience! The bishop was wrong, and I'm glad he apologised! I'm also grateful for a beautifully supportive ward!

In the past year, I have been asked by two different families to name and bless their born-out-of-wedlock children in our sacrament meeting. It has been joyful. I'm glad!

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name' (D&C 20:70, emphasis added).

Yes, it does say "before the church."  What it does not say is that it has to be in a church building.

  "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)

Edited by ksfisher
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

And I think we should do what is normally done.  But the handbook does not prescribe where it should happen, it just states what normally happens, nor do the scriptures.

But isn’t saying that it is normally done in fast and testimony meeting tantamount to saying where it is normally done? Maybe I’m not understanding your point. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, it does say "before the church."  What it does not day is that it has to be in a church building.

 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)

By this measure, we must have millions more Latter-day Saints in 'church' each Sunday than we currently count!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But isn’t saying that it is normally done in fast and testimony meeting tantamount to saying where it is normally done? Maybe I’m not understanding your point. 

Yes, that is what is normal.  But there is nothing inherent in the blessing that invalidates it if held elsewhere or at another time.  There is no church doctrine that prescribes holding a blessing at a certain time or in a certain place.  Only the authority needed is named in the scriptures.  

My point is that when the handbook says that in the chapel on fast Sunday is named in the handbook it says so because that is what you can usually expect to have happen, not what must happen.

 

Edited by ksfisher
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By this measure, we must have millions more Latter-day Saints in 'church' each Sunday than we currently count!

Not sure what you're meaning here.  

What exactly are we understanding by the phrase "before the church."  We don't expect it to mean general conference, or regional, or even a stake conference.  But we are comfortable saying that because the members of one ward have witnessed something that it happened "before the church" ?  But if a family, who are members of the church gather together (with their bishop) we are saying that this doesn't meet that criteria?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But if a family, who are members of the church gather together (with their bishop) we are saying that this doesn't meet that criteria?

So the 'two or three' who gather together at home need to include a bishop before they become a church?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post

Is snow water or dirt? SMH at where this thread has gone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So the 'two or three' who gather together at home need to include a bishop before they become a church?

Whatever.  I don't want to argue about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK. But if it is mandatory the bishop be told immediately after, I would argue it is still, in effect, under his direction. By contrast, I can give a blessing of healing to one of my family members and I don’t even have to inform the bishop, much less seek his approval before or after the fact. 

While I do not dispute that it is under the direction of the Bishop as the presiding High Priest the one of the primary reasons to make sure you inform the bishop is to make sure the record is created.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

My sister had a baby at 17. Horrifying enough but this was 80s and she dared to keep her son.  People treated her so bad. She quit coming to church because of it.  My dad talked her into blessing my nephew. We were all there at church, the baby's dad and his family( who were very anti the church because of how my sister had been treated). Right before church was to start the Bishop came and said that they couldn't allow us to bless the baby during Sacrament meeting.  We had made it look too easy and it set a bad example.  

 My sister left with my nephew crying. My mom's best friend stopped her. I don't know all that she said, but I know she said not to let them win.   

It was agreed to bless the baby right after Sacrament in the Relief Society room.  Family only. Word got out and most of ward came. There was no standing room and people stood in the hall to be there.  It was an amazing thing for my sister and our family to have that support.

   The bishop looked very mad and upset by what happened.    He was a good friend of my dad's.  It hurt their realtionship  for a long time. The Bishop came later and apologized to my sister and our family. 

I am beyond grateful for those in that ward that looked forward to his blessing and wanted to be apart of it.

 

This is so heartwarming! In my former ward there was a young lady that also got pregnant and kept the baby. When I was in the RS presidency we gave her a baby shower. I could not believe it when the president told me that some women in the ward would not come because they thought it was wrong, somewhat like the bishop had done, or worrying we were making it look like we condoned her behaviour or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

....worrying we were making it look like we condoned her behaviour or something. 

I can understand the concern of making it appear too appealing to a teen to have a baby because the attention received is desired.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3758479/Lifelike-baby-dolls-designed-deter-teenagers-having-children-actually-RAISE-pregnancy-rates.html

I am not saying that means blessings and showers should be forbidden, just saying it can be a difficult path to navigate.  It is important to be supportive of those who need support, both young mothers and those we are trying to help not become young mothers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I am a nursery leader.  And having nursery kids for only one hour was wonderful.  Especially with rambunctious three year olds having moved on to Primary.  Having that ten minutes shaved off of sacrament meeting was also good.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...