Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Leadership Broadcast earlier


Duncan

Recommended Posts

I could be wrong, LDST, but I suspect you'll really like the training once you get to see/read it online. I actually thought of you whilst discussing it with my priests yesterday morning.

I generally don't mind WW training; there's always something interesting to be heard. I just couldn't make it yesterday as our unit was displaying it fairly early in the morning and I had an early commitment. For some reason I already knew the training was about handbook 2 (I must have read it somewhere) so I was hoping for some summary, but I'll just discover the tidbits as I study the manual, and make record of those things.

Curious, what brought me to your mind?

H.

Link to comment

Well, I don't think I'd skip out on reading the manual just because there are some changes to callings and meetings summarized. Maybe I'll write up a summary of important administrative changes and post it on the interwebs.

H.

How's that? Men who don't keep the word of wisdom or are otherwise not temple worthy may still perform priesthood ordinances for their family if approved by the bishop. I think that's an important change worth including in your list :P

Link to comment
How's that? Men who don't keep the word of wisdom or are otherwise not temple worthy may still perform priesthood ordinances for their family if approved by the bishop. I think that's an important change worth including in your list

In other words, they can exercise Aaronic Priesthood, but not Melchizedek Priesthood.

From those to whom much has been given, much will be required.

Lehi

Link to comment

How's that? Men who don't keep the word of wisdom or are otherwise not temple worthy may still perform priesthood ordinances for their family if approved by the bishop. I think that's an important change worth including in your list :P

Yes, that was taught in the November training session, and I was quite delighted by the change. And I don't consider that a small, administrative change. I'm talking more about things like reducing meetings, eliminating callings, etc. That sort of thing.

H.

Link to comment

In other words, they can exercise Aaronic Priesthood, but not Melchizedek Priesthood.

From those to whom much has been given, much will be required.

Lehi

Not quite. From Handbook 2, section 20.1.2:

"A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice."

H.

Link to comment

In November, we had to give up our old copies of the CHI. How would you do this without the "original"?

Lehi

Not only that, but it is organized so differently one would have had to practically memorize the old CHI to catch every detail, and who did that?

Link to comment
Not quite.

I said, "In other words ..."

From Handbook 2, section 20.1.2:

"A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy.

Blessing a child is not a salvific ordinance. I know of nothing that says an Aaronic Priesthood holder may not do so.

Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood.

A Priest may baptize, and ordain other Priests, Teachers, and Deacons.

A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice."

Fathers without the Melchizedek Priesthood (or without any Priesthood at all) have been allowed to stand in the circles in these ordinance for many years that I know of. As these ordinances explicitly invoke the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the father's presence is, "Priesthoodly", unimportant.

I stand by my statement that they (Priesthood holders who are unworthy of Temple attendance) may exercise Aaronic, but not Melchizedek, Priesthood

I believe the reasoning is valid, too, but I would, seeing as was my reasoning by which I arrived at the conclusion.

Lehi

Link to comment

In November, we had to give up our old copies of the CHI. How would you do this without the "original"?

Lehi

I can recall most of what was in the old books - I've used extensively for years and have a pretty good memory for these things. Also, one can easily download PDF copies of them off the internet. And I'm only talking about the things that are scheduled. For instance, there used to be two general stake priesthood meetings per year, now there is only one. That's an easy one to recall if you know what traditionally happened. Another - there is no longer an Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood committee at the stake level, now, all high councilors meet as a single committee and discuss all affairs. Bishopric training meetings are now less frequent, there is only one stake auxiliary training per year, there are less large scale youth events.

Those are the types of things that could be summarized, because they are inherently useful and impactful in the lives of those who serve, but could be missed. For instance, I found out about the 'one stake priesthood meeting' by attending another stake and hearing it announced there.

Additionally, the rules around home teaching have changed. Where, once, a visit was mandatory each month, the model now is more in line with what the sisters can do - sending letters, phone call, etc. all count as visits. I think this is something leaders need to ponder, and determine how much flexibility they want in their local units, so I'd not say that this is something that should be summarized as a general rule. Nonetheless, I think it's important to have pointed out.

H.

Link to comment

Fathers without the Melchizedek Priesthood (or without any Priesthood at all) have been allowed to stand in the circles in these ordinance for many years that I know of. As these ordinances explicitly invoke the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the father's presence is, "Priesthoodly", unimportant.

Really? I don't think so... in fact, the old CHI says:

"The stake president (or someone under his direction) may ordain or authorize a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder to ordain the person to the office of elder. Only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may stand in the circle."

In fact, for other MP ordinances, it specifically says that only worthy MP holders may stand in the circle. So I'm not certain why it was done the way it was done where you are, but if it was done that way, it was done wrong.

H.

Link to comment

Not only that, but it is organized so differently one would have had to practically memorize the old CHI to catch every detail, and who did that?

You wouldn't have to memorize it, simply have used it for a really long time. We aren't talking about the 116 pages here - accuracy and precision isn't super important. If one meeting exists where two used to exist, that's the type of thing that could be summarized.

H.

Link to comment

I just couldn't make it yesterday as our unit was displaying it fairly early in the morning and I had an early commitment.

Thankfully, our stake chose to use the 3:00pm broadcast, which was a MAJOR improvement over November when, over my protests, they chose the 6:00am broadcast.

Curious, what brought me to your mind?

You've spoken repeatedly about some of the nonsense you've experienced in your area which doesn't sync with Church handbooks or polcies--or with anything I've personally experienced--including an area authority who tried to pass off his personal preferences on dress as something required of the Saints. The training touched on several issues you've raised in the past, if only generally. Let me know what you think after you've seen/read it.

In addition, though I've never met you and we live in completely different hemispheres, you're a brother, and I feel your loss.

Well, I don't think I'd skip out on reading the manual just because there are some changes to callings and meetings summarized. Maybe I'll write up a summary of important administrative changes and post it on the interwebs.

The night I got my handbooks, I actually stayed up reading through both of them and wrote a summary of changes to callings and meetings for the benefit of the stake presidency. I think they found it helpful.

Link to comment

You've spoken repeatedly about some of the nonsense you've experienced in your area which doesn't sync with Church handbooks or polcies--or with anything I've personally experienced--including an area authority who tried to pass off his personal preferences on dress as something required of the Saints. The training touched on several issues you've raised in the past, if only generally. Let me know what you think after you've seen/read it.

In addition, though I've never met you and we live in completely different hemispheres, you're a brother, and I feel your loss.

Hamba, that's nice of you to say. Thank you. I'll be catching the broadcast some night this week, probably Thursday while my wife is out of town. I'll let you know what I think.

The night I got my handbooks, I actually stayed up reading through both of them and wrote a summary of changes to callings and meetings for the benefit of the stake presidency. I think they found it helpful.

That's all I want to do. I've read both books through, and feel a good summary would be useful as well.

H.

Link to comment

Really? I don't think [fathers without Melchizedek (or even Aaronic) Priesthood can stand in the circle when their sons are being ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood]... in fact, the old CHI says:

"The stake president (or someone under his direction) may ordain or authorize a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder to ordain the person to the office of elder. Only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may stand in the circle."

In fact, for other MP ordinances, it specifically says that only worthy MP holders may stand in the circle. So I'm not certain why it was done the way it was done where you are, but if it was done that way, it was done wrong.

Well, there's your problem!! I was not referring, specifically, to the recently superseded CHI.

My information came from much longer ago than that. I was in Seminary, c. 1965~6 when our teacher, brother Peterson (then also serving as a bishop), told us that such men could (and often did) do so. The CHI may have changed that (I do not know, as I have never held the equivalent of Vol 1), but I'd say that 45 years qualifies to make the verb in my sentence be in the past tense.

Even last year, I'd have been willing to bet as much as 45

Link to comment
Unfortunately, I had to miss the broadcast yesterday, and will catch it on the website a little later. For anyone who did see it, was there, by any chance, a summary of the major administrative changes?

For instance, we seem to discover new stuff every week, as we read it, like only one stake priesthood meeting per year, instead of two, and new changes to hometeaching. It would be really nice if there was a summary given, somewhere.

H.

You want a summary?

Okay, how about this?

The Church is true; even in Toronto. The apostles and prophets are men of God; all of them. Especially President Packer.

The Lord stands at the head. The Church's policies are wise and inspired. The occasional decisions the Church has made on moral issues, which are at odds with the world, are in all cases correct.

See also Doctrine and Covenants 1:14.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

You want a summary?

Okay, how about this?

The Church is true; even in Toronto. The apostles and prophets are men of God; all of them. Especially President Packer.

The Lord stands at the head. The Church's policies are wise and inspired. The occasional decisions the Church has made on moral issues, which are at odds with the world, are in all cases correct.

See also Doctrine and Covenants 1:14.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hey, any mods around, looking at this? I'm pretty sure this attack isn't called for. I'd report it, but I've heard Pahoran is a mod on this site and I sure as hay don't want to have him getting at my personal information.

Please, someone report this.

H.

Link to comment
Hey, any mods around, looking at this? I'm pretty sure this attack isn't called for. I'd report it, but I've heard Pahoran is a mod on this site and I sure as hay don't want to have him getting at my personal information.

Please, someone report this.

H.

Do you see a personal attack? I don't know what that would be; but if you do, then go ahead and report it.

I'm not a mod.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

As a fellow Canadian the Church is true even in Toronto (Temple in Brampton) even though the Hockey team, the Maple Leafs appear to be in apostasy!

Cheer up! At least the Jays are . . .

Never mind

Link to comment

Hey, any mods around, looking at this? I'm pretty sure this attack isn't called for. I'd report it, but I've heard Pahoran is a mod on this site and I sure as hay don't want to have him getting at my personal information.

Please, someone report this.

H.

Pahoran is not a moderator. Any personal information accessed by moderators remains the same whether you use the report function or make a complaint within a thread.

Pahoran: Keep the focus on the subject and refrain from making any posters the subject please.

Skylla

Link to comment

He was very specific...he said that Handbook 2 is doctrine.

Also, another thing I noted in this broadcast was the emphasis on getting input from the Sisters.

The most specific council in this broadcast is that the new handbook facilitates ministering and revelation. We have to prepare ourselves spiritually to receive proper guidance by the spirit.

It was a wonderful broadcast and I left with the feeling that we have definitely raised the bar in ministering to the needs of the families.

Well, if it is doctrine, perhaps they should have the membership vote on it and make it a part of the standard works? I hear, when using the "Lectures on Faith" in discussion, "Well, that isn't doctrine, The church never voted on it." all the time.

Link to comment

Not quite. From Handbook 2, section 20.1.2:

"A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice."

H.

That is the funniest thing I have read so far this week...

Link to comment

So you've never heard of the ordinance of naming and blessing? It's been around for longer than you have, you know...

Lighten up, Nick. The wording is funny.

I grew up LDS and every church of the Restoration has baby blessings by Priesthood. Of course I know what it is referring to.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...