Gilding the Lily?: Adding Traditions/Customs to Gospel Observances

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

There’s nothing special about any calling.  We are all just nobodies, serving each other and the Lord. 

Hopefully you participated in a meaningful way with your team of bishop and counselors, executing all the business needs of your ward in harmony with the brothers.  This is a semantics discussion, that’s all. IMO. 

I think there’s a quote from one of the Church presidents — perhaps it was President Monson — to the effect that the only honor in any calling is the honor that we individually bring to it. 

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there’s a quote from one of the Church presidents — perhaps it was President Monson — to the effect that the only honor in any calling is the honor that we individually bring to it. 

In this we agree.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

A possible misappropriation....whether it was actually or just was communicated poorly, I don't know.  Nor do I know much history about it, his calling made a splash in the papers and various online communities, but I don't remember seeing any followup.  

There have been a few nontraditional believers I have come across who have publicly represented their position as executive secretary as one of leadership and teaching doctrine to a certain extent, but the only name I can remember is Mitch Mayne, who talked about how his ES calling in a San Francisco was to help bring inactive gay and other members back and other things that either explicitly or implicitly had him being a ward leader/teacher including having him a significant influence on the bishop iirc.  I don't know how it worked in reality, but it was presented in various interviews,  articles, and commentary I encountered as if it was a major event for an openly gay man (who had formerly been in a SS relationship and was open to it happening again) to be part of a bishopric where it seemed to present the calling of executive secretary to be pretty much a third bishopric counselor.

PS:  I see a possible misappropriation not because he was openly gay or the subject he was inclined to instruct others about, etc, but rather because he seemed to see his primary calling was to educate the bishop and others on how things should be done.

The first? Doubt it. I know of a Bishopric counselor who was openly gay in the sense that he did not hide his lack of attraction for women. He also did not publicize it loudly. He did not act on it and served faithfully. So I doubt this guy is the first.

Ward Executive Secretaries tend to be very good at their job and schedule things carefully and keep the bishop’s calendar well organized and serve as a filter when people want to speak to the bishop to avoid overloading his schedule. Really good ones have schedules for the counselors too. In other cases the bishop is hyper organized and anyone with a pulse can be the secretary and just take notes in the meeting. Want to guess which one I think he was?  

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Mitch Mayne was only in the position for about two years. He says he was released when the bishop moved out of the ward and the bishopric was dissolved, although, as was indicated in the CH1 quote that The Nehor provided, it is not required that the executive secretary and clerks be released when the bishopric is. 

Mayne is very much a self promoter and is still erroneously billing himself on his website as the first openly gay member of a bishopric. As I see it he tried to use the calling to give himself a national platform and prominence. I find that very off-putting. To the extent he succeeded in that, he was enabled by this rather common misconception that the ward executive secretary is a member of the bishopric. 

There’s nothing special about being ward executive secretary. Any man who meets the worthiness standards and has at least minimum competence can do it. I have served in the calling twice. But I never in either instance regarded myself as a member of the bishopric. 

Thanks for the update.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

If your phone officially supports it (e.g., Samsung, Pixel, and a few others) then there is dedicated hardware / software to keep battery drain to a minimum; we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5% per hour, which is essentially nothing for such a useful feature. If you have an iPhone or some other Android manufacturer who doesn't support it natively, then you'll have to make use of a third-party app to do it, though it will be a bit more costly (say, around 5% / hour) but still pretty tolerable if you aren't a power user.

Come on Scott. Try it, you'll like it. Just once won't hurt.  

 

Remember, I’m an iPhone user. I love it. But not as a wrist watch replacement. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The first? Doubt it. I know of a Bishopric counselor who was openly gay in the sense that he did not hide his lack of attraction for women. He also did not publicize it loudly. He did not act on it and served faithfully. So I doubt this guy is the first.

Ward Executive Secretaries tend to be very good at their job and schedule things carefully and keep the bishop’s calendar well organized and serve as a filter when people want to speak to the bishop to avoid overloading his schedule. Really good ones have schedules for the counselors too. In other cases the bishop is hyper organized and anyone with a pulse can be the secretary and just take notes in the meeting. Want to guess which one I think he was?  

Not only is he not the first, he never has been a bishopric member. 

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not only is he not the first, he never has been a bishopric member. 

Oh yeah, I meant to put in a line that this case had an authentic actual Bishopric member and not a faux one. I probably should not type when on a conference call.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/15/2019 at 12:49 PM, Calm said:

A possible misappropriation....whether it was actually or just was communicated poorly, I don't know.  Nor do I know much history about it, his calling made a splash in the papers and various online communities, but I don't remember seeing any followup.  

There have been a few nontraditional believers I have come across who have publicly represented their position as executive secretary as one of leadership and teaching doctrine to a certain extent, but the only name I can remember is Mitch Mayne, who talked about how his ES calling in a San Francisco was to help bring inactive gay and other members back and other things that either explicitly or implicitly had him being a ward leader/teacher including having him a significant influence on the bishop iirc.  I don't know how it worked in reality, but it was presented in various interviews,  articles, and commentary I encountered as if it was a major event for an openly gay man (who had formerly been in a SS relationship and was open to it happening again) to be part of a bishopric where it seemed to present the calling of executive secretary to be pretty much a third bishopric counselor.

PS:  I see a possible misappropriation not because he was openly gay or the subject he was inclined to instruct others about, etc, but rather because he seemed to see his primary calling was to educate the bishop and others on how things should be done.

 

On 8/15/2019 at 1:27 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Mitch Mayne was only in the position for about two years. He says he was released when the bishop moved out of the ward and the bishopric was dissolved, although, as was indicated in the CH1 quote that The Nehor provided, it is not required that the executive secretary and clerks be released when the bishopric is. 

Mayne is very much a self promoter and is still erroneously billing himself on his website as the first openly gay member of a bishopric. As I see it he tried to use the calling to give himself a national platform and prominence. I find that very off-putting. To the extent he succeeded in that, he was enabled by this rather common misconception that the ward executive secretary is a member of the bishopric. 

There’s nothing special about being ward executive secretary. Any man who meets the worthiness standards and has at least minimum competence can do it. I have served in the calling twice. But I never in either instance regarded myself as a member of the bishopric. 

 

On 8/15/2019 at 1:59 PM, The Nehor said:

The first? Doubt it. I know of a Bishopric counselor who was openly gay in the sense that he did not hide his lack of attraction for women. He also did not publicize it loudly. He did not act on it and served faithfully. So I doubt this guy is the first.

Ward Executive Secretaries tend to be very good at their job and schedule things carefully and keep the bishop’s calendar well organized and serve as a filter when people want to speak to the bishop to avoid overloading his schedule. Really good ones have schedules for the counselors too. In other cases the bishop is hyper organized and anyone with a pulse can be the secretary and just take notes in the meeting. Want to guess which one I think he was?  

 

On 8/15/2019 at 2:24 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Not only is he not the first, he never has been a bishopric member. 

For the sake of accuracy, I need to amend what I said earlier. I went back and looked at Mitch Mayne’s website, and it doesn’t say in there that he was the <first> openly gay member of a bishopric, although he is still obviously under the false impression that being an executive secretary amounted to his being a bishopric member and thus in a leadership role. 

It’s my recollection from the internet buzz that transpired at the time of his call that it was some sort of landmark event because of his being openly gay, so I assumed when I looked at the website that he was still claiming status as the first. 

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

For the sake of accuracy, I need to amend what I said earlier. I went back and looked at Mitch Mayne’s website, and it doesn’t say in there that he was the <first> openly gay member of a bishopric, although he is still obviously under the false impression that being an executive secretary amounted to his being a bishopric member and thus in a leadership role. 

It’s my recollection from the internet buzz that transpired at the time of his call that it was some sort of landmark event because of his being openly gay, so I assumed when I looked at the website that he was still claiming status as the first. 

I'm not that familiar with this story,  and I can't find any source where he claimed to be the first openly gay member of a bishopric. Can you please provide a source for that? 

[mfbukowski]

On 8/15/2019 at 7:15 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

If my phone has an always-on function, I don’t know about it. And I wouldn’t use it if it did. I wouldn’t want the constant power drain. 

And even when I worked at a desk job, there was still a significant portion of my day (and night) when I wasn’t at my desk. 

Edited to add: And there is always a substantial part of the time when I’m not carrying my phone: doing yard work or sports, for example (too great a hazard that it will be damaged). Or during service in the temple, when we are expected not to carry a phone. Or when I’m getting dressed, or shaving, or brushing my teeth. 

One of my temple responsibilities is starting the sessions on time, and cutting off late arrivals when necessary. I need strong evidence about how late they really are.  If you don't get it right you can back up the whole temple schedule for the whole day!

My watch is waterproof to a degree 

I wear my watch 24/7 and it's cheap enough if I smash it, it's no big deal. Hasn't happened ever. 

Use it on long bike rides, when it could be dangerous to be fumbling around with a fragile phone

I think I should be buried with it

It's got a lighted display and it probably gets kinda dark underground...

And who knows how spirits tell time? 😜😜

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/16/2019 at 5:25 PM, mfbukowski said:

One of my temple responsibilities is starting the sessions on time, and cutting off late arrivals when necessary. I need strong evidence about how late they really are.  If you don't get it right you can back up the whole temple schedule for the whole day!

My watch is waterproof to a degree 

I wear my watch 24/7 and it's cheap enough if I smash it, it's no big deal. Hasn't happened ever. 

Use it on long bike rides, when it could be dangerous to be fumbling around with a fragile phone

I think I should be buried with it

It's got a lighted display and it probably gets kinda dark underground...

And who knows how spirits tell time? 😜😜

 

 

You need a watch like the Casio I used to wear. Every night it received a radio signal and synchronized with Universal Standard Time. Can’t get much more accurate than that with evidence!

Edited August 19, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

I'm not that familiar with this story,  and I can't find any source where he claimed to be the first openly gay member of a bishopric. Can you please provide a source for that? 

I’m afraid it has been too long ago now for me to find anything. Even the outside source he linked to from his website, a Trib piece by Peggy Fletcher Stack, says he was not the first and cited examples to the contrary. 

I just remember the sensation on the Internet about this being such a novel thing. And I don’t know that Stack would have bothered citing prior examples if there hadn’t been the general assumption that he was the first. It could be that he claimed so at first but has long since revised his claim  

Perhaps Calm, who also recollects the occasion, can bear out or correct my memory. 

[cacheman]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m afraid it has been too long ago now for me to find anything. Even the outside source he linked to from his website, a Trib piece by Peggy Fletcher Stack, says he was not the first and cited examples to the contrary. 

I just remember the sensation on the Internet about this being such a novel thing. And I don’t know that Stack would have bothered citing prior examples if there hadn’t been the general assumption that he was the first. It could be that he claimed so at first but has long since revised his claim  

Perhaps Calm, who also recollects the occasion, can bear out or correct my memory. 

Ok.  So,  this was also just an assumption or perhaps a vague memory that may or not be correct?  Are you comfortable making statements about people that you don't know to be true? If not,  perhaps you should edit it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Ok.  So,  this was also just an assumption or perhaps a vague memory that may or not be correct?  Are you comfortable making statements about people that you don't know to be true? If not,  perhaps you should edit it. 

My memory on this is more than just vague. I’ve already corrected myself on what the website contains, but there wouldn’t have been all the Internet chatter if it had not been widely assumed that it was highly unusual, if not altogether unheard of, for an openly gay man to be “in a bishopric.” 

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we need to be charitable when evaluating the addition of customs or traditions to Church observances. 

For example, over the years, I had heard that the Church practices in Europe were being corrupted during World War II because the local leaders and members had their communication with Church headquarters in Salt Lake City cut off and they were not receiving on-going instruction. . As an example, it was said that the people were putting candles on the sacrament table during the observance of the sacrament, a sectarian-appearing practice.

More recently I have learned that there was a practical reason for the candles. During the war, they were obliged to cover the windows of the meetinghouse lest interior light should shine through and give away the location of the building during bombing raids. Of course, if interior light was blocked from going out, outside light would be blocked from shining in. The candles on the sacrament table we’re simply to provide sufficient light for the priesthood holders to administer the sacrament. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

A friend told me of a bishop in a ward where he served his mission was a Catholic convert. According to him, the bishop asked the speaking blesser to kneel on both knees. The other blesser was to stand with both hands hovering over the Holy emblems with the left palm resting on top of the back of the right hand. Sometimes Eucharistic customs blend.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Valentinus said:

A friend told me of a bishop in a ward where he served his mission was a Catholic convert. According to him, the bishop asked the speaking blesser to kneel on both knees. The other blesser was to stand with both hands hovering over the Holy emblems with the left palm resting on top of the back of the right hand. Sometimes Eucharistic customs blend.

I've seen black and white photos of men at the LDS sacrament table in a similar position. I think it used to be done this way, way back when. I did a quick search to see if I could find a picture, but couldn't. Maybe someone else would have more luck, or I'm remembering incorrectly.

[Stargazer]

On 8/14/2019 at 4:15 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

One erroneous assumption I’ve seen creep up in recent years is that the ward clerk and the ward executive secretary are members of the bishopric. They are not. They might be regarded as ancillary staff to the bishopric. But they don’t have the authority, duties, roles, ecclesiastical stature, etc. of the bishop or either of his counselors. They do not conduct meetings, issue callings, receive tithing, perform settings apart, conduct temple recommend interviews, act as advisors to auxiliary presidencies, oversee facets of the ward organization. They are not members of the bishopric. The bishopric consists of the bishop, the first counselor and the second counselor. Period. 

It's an easy assumption, since in the Organizations tab in Tools you will find the Clerk and Exec Sec listed under Bishopric.  Of course you're right they're not "of the Bishopric", but they are "of the Bishopric."  The Clerk does have ecclesiastical duties, however. For example, the Clerk records the proceedings of disciplinary hearings (but is not supposed to speak during them). The Clerk's records are ecclesiastically important, even if he does not preside over anything.  When I was our Ward Clerk, the bishop always asked for my and the Exec Sec's input on matters being discussed.  That was that way over three different bishops.  But that doesn't mean we were counselors.  We just had insights that the bishops found valuable, since all of us had different perspectives on what was going on in the ward.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's an easy assumption, since in the Organizations tab in Tools you will find the Clerk and Exec Sec listed under Bishopric.  Of course you're right they're not "of the Bishopric", but they are "of the Bishopric."  The Clerk does have ecclesiastical duties, however. For example, the Clerk records the proceedings of disciplinary hearings (but is not supposed to speak during them). The Clerk's records are ecclesiastically important, even if he does not preside over anything.  When I was our Ward Clerk, the bishop always asked for my and the Exec Sec's input on matters being discussed.  That was that way over three different bishops.  But that doesn't mean we were counselors.  We just had insights that the bishops found valuable, since all of us had different perspectives on what was going on in the ward.

I never said their jobs are not important. I said they are not members of the bishopric. They have ancillary duties that support the bishopric, but they are not members of the bishopric. The elders quorum president has an important calling, but he is not in the bishopric. Likewise with the Relief Society president. 

How much of this thread have you read? I’ve already addressed the point about the online listing. That is merely a list of contact information. The executive secretary and clerks appear in the “Bishopric” section because of the ancillary role they have, not because they are bishopric members. 

Did you see The Nehor’s quotation from the Church Handbook 1 that explicitly  states the executive secretary and clerk are not members of the bishopric? 

As members of the ward council, the executive secretary and the clerk can give counsel to the bishop when he desires it. But the same can be said of the elders quorum president and the auxiliary presidents, female and male. Nobody regards them as being “in the bishopric.”

If you keep saying that the executive secretary and clerks are “in the bishopric” you risk confusing people into believing they hold leadership positions over the ward members, which, of course, they do not. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said their jobs are not important. I said they are not members of the bishopric. They have ancillary duties that support the bishopric, but they are not members of the bishopric. The elders quorum president has an important calling, but he is not in the bishopric. Likewise with the Relief Society president. 

How much of this thread have you read? I’ve already addressed the point about the online listing. That is merely a list of contact information. The executive secretary and clerks appear in the “Bishopric” section because of the ancillary role they have, not because they are bishopric members. 

Did you see The Nehor’s quotation from the Church Handbook 1 that explicitly  states the executive secretary and clerk are not members of the bishopric? 

As members of the ward council, the executive secretary and the clerk can give counsel to the bishop when he desires it. But the same can be said of the elders quorum president and the auxiliary presidents, female and male. Nobody regards them as being “in the bishopric.”

If you keep saying that the executive secretary and clerks are “in the bishopric” you risk confusing people into believing they hold leadership positions over the ward members, which, of course, they do not. 

I do understand the point, Scott.  I've actually never run into any confusion over this by members of the church -- I take it that you have?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I do understand the point, Scott.  I've actually never run into any confusion over this by members of the church -- I take it that you have?

My sense is that most members of the Church do understand that the executive secretary and clerk are not bishopric members. I wonder about those who don’t. 

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My sense is that most members of the Church do understand that the executive secretary and clerk are not bishopric members. I wonder about those who don’t. 

Not sure it matters much.  However, you are correct, the official “bishopric” is the bishop and his two counselors. 

Ive heard it said by bishops or stake pres , “he served with me when I was Bishop in (2014)” referring to an exec sec or what have you .  I don’t think that bishops would claim that the secretary was in the “bishopric”.  However, culturally, when a president is called to other auxiliaries including class presidents for ym and yw the president picks their own secretary and the secretary is set apart in the same group as the counselors, and many of the meetings are attended together and the group at least appears cohesive.

 If my husband said I want to invite the bishopric and their wives over for dinner I would expect to feed three guest couples.  But if he told me that he also invited the exec secretary I wouldn’t pitch a fit, lol. Nor would I judge my husband.

When my grandfather served in the bishopric in 1978, he had his photo taken of his bishopric, standing behind his desk.  Included in his photo are his secretaries.  That left an impression on me as a child, and I knew he was close to all those men. They served together.  

That said I’ve never ever heard a secretary to have described himself as having served in the bishopric.  I have heard them describe themselves as having served with the bishopric. 

For what it’s worth, identifying secretaries as Non Bishopric ordinations it leaves open the possibility of women filling the role of secretary. Once they can be trusted with such important things such as money and human counting and such.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Not sure it matters much.  However, you are correct, the official “bishopric” is the bishop and his two counselors. 

Ive heard it said by bishops or stake pres , “he served with me when I was Bishop in (2014)” referring to an exec sec or what have you .  I don’t think that bishops would claim that the secretary was in the “bishopric”.  However, culturally, when a president is called to other auxiliaries including class presidents for ym and yw the president picks their own secretary and the secretary is set apart in the same group as the counselors, and many of the meetings are attended together and the group at least appears cohesive.

 If my husband said I want to invite the bishopric and their wives over for dinner I would expect to feed three guest couples.  But if he told me that he also invited the exec secretary I wouldn’t pitch a fit, lol. Nor would I judge my husband.

When my grandfather served in the bishopric in 1978, he had his photo taken of his bishopric, standing behind his desk.  Included in his photo are his secretaries.  That left an impression on me as a child, and I knew he was close to all those men. They served together.  

That said I’ve never ever heard a secretary to have described himself as having served in the bishopric.  I have heard them describe themselves as having served with the bishopric. 

For what it’s worth, identifying secretaries as Non Bishopric ordinations it leaves open the possibility of women filling the role of secretary. Once they can be trusted with such important things such as money and human counting and such.

 

Undoubtedly there is a bond of sociality and affection that develops between bishoprics and those who work closely with them, but there is an ecclesiastical distinction that I believe important we not lose sight of. 

Years ago, when I was an executive secretary in a prior ward, the ward clerk spoke in one of the meetings, perhaps it was fast and testimony meeting, about this being his first experience being in a bishopric. I raised my eyebrows and thought privately, “You’re not in a bishopric even now, brother, any more than I am.” 

Some years later, Mitch Mayne wrote on his blog about being made executive secretary and how this was a landmark event because he was the first gay man to be “in a bishopric” and how this put him in a position to counsel the bishop and educate Church members and how far the Church has come and so on and so forth. It made news and got some attention in the blogosphere. 

I commented on this board at the time that being an executive secretary does not make him a bishopric member. I got some pushback, which indicated to me this misconception has taken root somewhat among our people. Thus I’ve made a point from time to time to clear up this misconception when I can. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[MustardSeed]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Undoubtedly there is a bond of sociality and affection that develops between bishoprics and those who work closely with them, but there is an ecclesiastical distinction that I believe important we not lose sight of. 

Years ago, when I was an executive secretary in a prior ward, the ward clerk spoke in one of the meetings, perhaps it was fast and testimony meeting, about this being his first experience being in a bishopric. I raised my eyebrows and thought privately, “You’re not in a bishopric even now, brother, any more than I am.” 

Some years later, Mitch Mayne wrote on his blog about being made executive secretary and how this was a landmark event because he was the first gay man to be “in a bishopric” and how this put him in a position to counsel the bishop and educate Church members and how far the Church has come and so on and so forth. It made news and got some attention in the blogosphere. 

I commented on this board at the time that being an executive secretary does not make him a bishopric member. I got some pushback, which indicated to me this misconception has taken root somewhat among our people. Thus I’ve made a point from time to time to clear up this misconception when I can. 

Ah now I get it. 

Back stories- cumbersome at times but very very helpful in understanding.  Thank you. 

[mfbukowski]

On 8/20/2019 at 9:57 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen black and white photos of men at the LDS sacrament table in a similar position. I think it used to be done this way, way back when. I did a quick search to see if I could find a picture, but couldn't. Maybe someone else would have more luck, or I'm remembering incorrectly.

Well except for the hand gesture, it IS commonplace for the one doing the blessing to kneel.  And when one gives a blessing it usually is done with both hands on the head of the one being blessed- and that hand gesture would not be  considered inappropriate in that situation.

On one hand it is easy to see how these things get started, but the reason behind doing it the "proper" way is never explained.

Paraphrasing the centurion, "Lord I am not worthy that you come under my roof- speak but the word and my servant will be healed"

I guess one could interpret that to nullify all these physical gestures whether considered "orthodox" or not.  Also folding the arms for prayer instead of hands palm to palm with fingers extended upward?

I mean why is one acceptable and the other not?  Sounds like nothing but tradition to me!