Jump to content

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If we want to get fussy, the entire congregation should be kneeling for the sacrament prayer, not just one priest. 

Note: left handed people are those who are in their right mind

 

That would be so cool to kneel if able! And left handed people are supposedly smarter. 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Calm said:

My impression was women kept theirs on, men off, but I may be wrong.

When we went church in our new Easter finery, the hats and gloves stayed on. For awhile anyway. They were ridiculously uncomfortable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, juliann said:

When we went church in our new Easter finery, the hats and gloves stayed on. For awhile anyway. They were ridiculously uncomfortable. 

I remember having a hat and lacy gloves as a 4 or 5 year old.  Blue and white flowered dress matching my sister.  I was probably quite proud of them at the time.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That would be so cool to kneel if able! And left handed people are supposedly smarter. 

Having bad knees my entire life (always so fun to hear them go "crack" in the middle of a gymnastic routine), so grateful that has not been standard.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

My experience with this and other similar guidance I’ve received over the years is that I gain insight and Divine nudges as I strive to discern rather than dismiss, ponder rather than parse, and seek meaning over time rather than ascribe it in the moment.

This is the most important contribution in this entire thread. :good:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Something else from a long time ago when the sacrament was blessed you had to raise both hands in the air while saying the prayer. 

sacramentHandsUp.jpg.f49f609630742f336c5fc4dbf14df231.jpg

I’m not sure how this relates to a member of the congregation wearing gloves while partaking of the sacrament.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JAHS said:


sacramentHandsUp.jpg.f49f609630742f336c5fc4dbf14df231.jpg

Those are pretty good beards for 16-year-old priests ...

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

But if you had been bishop, you would avoid being alone with your own sister?  Is that an expected level of morality for bishops (and above)?

That would be up to the individual to decide. Bishops are not issued chaperones when they are ordained. If members of the ward did not know my sister, then I might find a way that I could without being a cause for some to err. I know, I know. It's their problem, right? Maybe it is, but all things should be done with wisdom.

Hmm. Come to think of it, I have forgotten that there was a short time when my oldest sister, a few of years before her death, lived with my parents while I was their bishop. The situation never presented itself.

That was almost 40 years ago. Man, time flies.

Is your intention to demean President Oaks? To detect hypocrisy or some sort of Church-induced rigidness? What's the point? 

I do recall the testimony meeting in Rockford, IL, when a sister stood up and lectured the ward. "That man some of you saw me with at the restaurant was part of a business transaction. You should stop gossiping about me!" 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is your intention to demean President Oaks? To detect hypocrisy or some sort of Church-induced rigidness? What's the point? 

 

I’m trying to understand the words of the church leaders and how others live by those words.  I’d never been taught that we need to be careful about being seen walking with a biological sister, and wonder if that’s something good to live by.

Because yes - it seems ridiculous to me. But, I’m looking for people that live that admonishment/advice/commandment from Elder Oaks to explain to me why that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post

We can help our brothers and sisters in various ways.  One of which is to recognize that some have weaknesses and not ask more of them than they can handle.  Another way is to understand that weakness and push them a bit to help them overcome it.

An analogy is recognizing someone has a weak back,  Using the first approach, we wouldn't ask them to come help us move furniture.  Using the second, we might ask them to join us on our walks in order to give them opportunities to strengthen the weak backs.

Pres. Oaks sometimes protects our weaker members and sometimes pushes them, in  my view.  I agree with the principle though I don't always agree with how he puts it in practice.  We can't always be sure which is the best approach.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I’m not sure how this relates to a member of the congregation wearing gloves while partaking of the sacrament.

Nothing, but as you can see the Priest took off his gloves before saying the prayer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m trying to understand the words of the church leaders and how others live by those words.  I’d never been taught that we need to be careful about being seen walking with a biological sister, and wonder if that’s something good to live by.

Because yes - it seems ridiculous to me. But, I’m looking for people that live that admonishment/advice/commandment from Elder Oaks to explain to me why that makes sense.

Ridiculous to you, but perhaps it was his personal sense of propriety and caution given the position he was in. Will you grant him that privilege? Is it your purpose to make him seem ridiculous? I would like to see a transcript of the talk so I can read it in context in its entirety. Can you provide that?  Has he asked you or anyone else to do that? He hasn’t asked me to do it.

I explained the instructions given to me as a bishop. I think it’s standard for new Priesthood leaders. They did not include avoiding  beeing seen alone with my mother, sister, aunt, cousin, grandmother, step-sister, daughter, step-daughter, or daughter-in-law. I reckon the stake president trusted me to be prudent and reasonable in observing his counsel. 

Presidents Benson and Hinckley got singled out for offering this quaint sexist advice. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/13/no-no-for-a-man-to-have-a-business-lunch-with-a-woman-not-his-spouse-such-thinking-may-be-rooted-in-past-mormon-counsel/

I notice Vice-President Pence has also been ridiculed because he has adopted a similar standard of behavior. He has received the same reward being given President Oaks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/30/mike-pence-doesnt-dine-alone-with-other-women-and-were-all-shocked/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d0d08db23a2

Same ridiculing treatment for Billy Graham and executives who follow the “Graham rule,” and even citing Jesus with the woman at the well as evidence against their extremist position. https://hbr.org/2017/05/men-shouldnt-refuse-to-be-alone-with-female-colleagues

Now that #Metoo has shaken up the system, there probably are more than a few fellows who wish they had been more circumspect.

Quote
  1. The word circumspect was borrowed from Latin circumspectus, from circumspicere "to be cautious." The basic meaning of Latin circumspicere is "to look around." Near synonyms are prudent and cautious, though circumspect implies a careful consideration of all circumstances and a desire to avoid mistakes and bad consequences.     vocabulary. com

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Those are pretty good beards for 16-year-old priests ...

Indeed. At that time high priests and elders did the duties priests and deacons do today.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post

We do our best in the temple to get every ordinance perfectly right every single time. Unfortunately it doesn't happen that way. often times we find mistakes were committed after the patron has left the building.

in my opinion the purpose of these customs is to teach obedience and that exact us is important. Once that lesson is learned and done to the best of one's ability I think one must realize that the Lord is not a machine.

It seems clear to me that elder Oaks was talking to the youth. It is important to learn these lessons. But no one is perfect and the substance of the issue is that we do our best and the atonement makes up for the rest.

At least that is what we have been taught in Temple work.

Ordinances are not invalidated by unintended errors. These are not magic incantations and this is not Harry Potter's world of magic spells.

In my opinion if elder Oaks himself read this thread this would be his comment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ridiculous to you, but perhaps it was his personal sense of propriety and caution given the position he was in. Will you grant him that privilege? Is it your purpose to make him seem ridiculous? I would like to see a transcript of the talk so I can read it in context in its entirety. Can you provide that?  Has he asked you or anyone else to do that? He hasn’t asked me to do it.

I explained the instructions given to me as a bishop. I think it’s standard for new Priesthood leaders. They did not include avoiding  beeing seen alone with my mother, sister, aunt, cousin, grandmother, step-sister, daughter, step-daughter, or daughter-in-law. I reckon the stake president trusted me to be prudent and reasonable in observing his counsel. 

Presidents Benson and Hinckley got singled out for offering this quaint sexist advice. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/13/no-no-for-a-man-to-have-a-business-lunch-with-a-woman-not-his-spouse-such-thinking-may-be-rooted-in-past-mormon-counsel/

I notice Vice-President Pence has also been ridiculed because he has adopted a similar standard of behavior. He has received the same reward being given President Oaks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/30/mike-pence-doesnt-dine-alone-with-other-women-and-were-all-shocked/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d0d08db23a2

Same ridiculing treatment for Billy Graham and executives who follow the “Graham rule,” and even citing Jesus with the woman at the well as evidence against their extremist position. https://hbr.org/2017/05/men-shouldnt-refuse-to-be-alone-with-female-colleagues

Now that #Metoo has shaken up the system, there probably are more than a few fellows who wish they had been more circumspect.

 

I wonder why all these years they allow bishops/counselors to be alone with the youth in a room, hum....

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ridiculous to you, but perhaps it was his personal sense of propriety and caution given the position he was in. Will you grant him that privilege? Is it your purpose to make him seem ridiculous? I would like to see a transcript of the talk so I can read it in context in its entirety. Can you provide that?  Has he asked you or anyone else to do that? He hasn’t asked me to do it.

I explained the instructions given to me as a bishop. I think it’s standard for new Priesthood leaders. They did not include avoiding  beeing seen alone with my mother, sister, aunt, cousin, grandmother, step-sister, daughter, step-daughter, or daughter-in-law. I reckon the stake president trusted me to be prudent and reasonable in observing his counsel. 

Presidents Benson and Hinckley got singled out for offering this quaint sexist advice. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/13/no-no-for-a-man-to-have-a-business-lunch-with-a-woman-not-his-spouse-such-thinking-may-be-rooted-in-past-mormon-counsel/

I notice Vice-President Pence has also been ridiculed because he has adopted a similar standard of behavior. He has received the same reward being given President Oaks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/30/mike-pence-doesnt-dine-alone-with-other-women-and-were-all-shocked/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d0d08db23a2

Same ridiculing treatment for Billy Graham and executives who follow the “Graham rule,” and even citing Jesus with the woman at the well as evidence against their extremist position. https://hbr.org/2017/05/men-shouldnt-refuse-to-be-alone-with-female-colleagues

Now that #Metoo has shaken up the system, there probably are more than a few fellows who wish they had been more circumspect.

 

I’m not sure how the subject of the propriety of a man being alone with his blood sister got expanded to the rise of the Me Too movement.  Let’s stay focused on that idea.

Do I intend to ridicule Elder Oaks?  Being cautious about walking across campus with his own sister - yes, this seems ridiculous to me. He seems to be highly concerned about his reputation (appearance among LDS students that he is true to his wife).

But, I agree with your point that understanding his words more fully is important.  Perhaps there is more to the story. I can only say that while he is free to live as Victorian of a life as he wants, I do not feel the least inclined to see his choice as reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, juliann said:

When we went church in our new Easter finery, the hats and gloves stayed on. For awhile anyway. They were ridiculously uncomfortable. 

And for some reason that was the "itchiest" Sunday ever...I felt like was walking cloth of starch...the bonnet too!!😄

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, bluebell said:

The only difference between whether or not something is a commandment or a 'hedge'  depends on whether or not it comes from God.  It doesn't matter how strict it is or how lenient; that's not the dividing line between pharisaical or of God.  The line is whether it's a creation of man or of God.  And people disagree on that with this topic.

 

I don't know if it's the only difference, but it's certainly the most important element.  Admittedly, it has been quite a while since I did a deep dive into the scriptures given my faith crisis, but it seems to me that the documentation of prescriptive commands from God were relatively few and far between and, for lack of a better word, momentous (e.g. Ten Commandments).  On the other hand various faith traditions make claims of Divine inspiration to support all manner of ceremony and strict acts which clearly develop over great lengths of time.  Perhaps this is a potential dividing line worth exploring?

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The difference is HUGE. Let me explain:

When other people are hung up on ceremony and form, they are acting as the Pharisees.  When we Mormons do something that requires ceremony and form, it is acting in accordance with God’s exact prescribed will.*

 

 

*Please note that God’s exact and eternal will may change from time to time - please do not study history to make comparisons with today’s practices.

I realize my initial post was a bit sarcastic, but even for me your response is a little too cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m not sure how the subject of the propriety of a man being alone with his blood sister got expanded to the rise of the Me Too movement.  Let’s stay focused on that idea.

Do I intend to ridicule Elder Oaks?  Being cautious about walking across campus with his own sister - yes, this seems ridiculous to me. He seems to be highly concerned about his reputation (appearance among LDS students that he is true to his wife).

But, I agree with your point that understanding his words more fully is important.  Perhaps there is more to the story. I can only say that while he is free to live as Victorian of a life as he wants, I do not feel the least inclined to see his choice as reasonable.

You have made your position on President Oaks quite clear. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why all these years they allow bishops/counselors to be alone with the youth in a room, hum....

This has been discussed so many times here. You know the answer, right?

Share this post


Link to post

 

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When Indonesia and Malaysia revised their orthographic standards to make them identical, the use of the numeral 2 was discontinued and replaced with hyphenated reduplication. I think that was in 1972, so this man must have been a bit old-school.

This was in 1972 or 73, so not so much old-school.

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Who has said it is invalidated and must be repeated? I must have missed that. 

That's the impression that I got from President Oaks in the OP.  Not necessarily that it is invalidated, but that it should be repeated if done incorrectly, just like the sacramental prayer.  If that is not what he was saying, I am confused at the comparison he made to the sacramental prayer and baptism that need to be done with exactness or repeated.

Quote

 

The Sacrament is an ordinance of the Gospel. And because it's an ordinance, it needs to be done exactly right.  Just like the prayers that the priests offer, they have to say the exact language in the prayers. Because it's a priesthood ordinance. Just like baptism...And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again.

When we're baptized the priest raises his right hand, not his left hand, but his right hand. And when we partake of the sacrament, we partake with our right hand, not our left hand

 

It sounds to me like he is saying that "just like" baptism, the ordinance of the sacrament "needs to be done exactly right", which includes partaking with the right hand, and if it is not done with the right hand like in baptism "it has to be done again."   He says it is, "just like the prayers that the priests offer", which we know that if they say it wrong, it needs to be repeated.

If that is not what he was saying, I don't understand what he is getting at all.   Does it need to be done with exactness or not?  If not, then why bring it up at all, emphasizing the exactness that is needed if they didn't do anything wrong?  If anything, I am confused by his statement.  If he is indeed saying that it needs to be done with exactness with the right hand or repeated, I disagree.  If he is not saying that, than I truly don't understand what he is saying. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's the impression that I got from President Oaks in the OP.  Not necessarily that it is invalidated, but that it should be repeated if done incorrectly, just like the sacramental prayer.  If that is not what he was saying, I am confused at the comparison he made to the sacramental prayer and baptism that need to be done with exactness or repeated.

It sounds to me like he is saying that "just like" baptism, the ordinance of the sacrament "needs to be done exactly right", which includes partaking with the right hand, and if it is not done with the right hand like in baptism "it has to be done again."   He says it is, "just like the prayers that the priests offer", which we know that if they say it wrong, it needs to be repeated.

If that is not what he was saying, I don't understand what he is getting at all.   Does it need to be done with exactness or not?  If not, then why bring it up at all, emphasizing the exactness that is needed if they didn't do anything wrong?  If anything, I am confused by his statement.  If he is indeed saying that it needs to be done with exactness with the right hand or repeated, I disagree.  If he is not saying that, than I truly don't understand what he is saying. 

 

Perhaps he will explain so we can all rest easy once more.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why all these years they allow bishops/counselors to be alone with the youth in a room, hum....

At least now, parents can request to be present (or have another adult present) rather than their child or youth being alone with an adult male (who may be asking questions of a sexual nature).

That is progress, IMO and is also a good protective measure for the adult male as well.

Edited by ALarson

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...