Jump to content
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 by MustardSeed

Share this post


Link to post
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? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. :diablo: 

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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 by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, 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. Ever night it received a radio signal and synchronized with Universal Standard Time. Can’t get much more accurate than that with evidence!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.” 

Share this post


Link to post

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 by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 3

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...