Little Children Bearing Their Testimonies

[ERayR]

This past sunday was the first sunday i can recall when a kid helping out another kid got up. My boy wanted to get up a few years ago and heaven only knows what he would have said! he is very candid and blunt sometimes! But unbeknownst to me one year he memorized his scripture for the primary presentation, so I don't know what to think of what he would have said. I don't mind one or two kids getting up just as long as it isn't a distraction and going on and on and on like some adults...!

Suffer the little children to come unto me

[Scott Lloyd]

Currently on YouTube, there's a recording of a father telling a child what to say at the pulpit during testimony meeting (undoubtedly recorded surreptitiously by someone in the congregation). The responses are very negative, saying it's "creepy" and what not.

While this might just be standard Internet Mormon-bashing, I can see how it might come across that way to outsiders. A very good reason not to do such a thing.

[Sky]

Currently on YouTube, there's a recording of a father telling a child what to say at the pulpit during testimony meeting (undoubtedly recorded surreptitiously by someone in the congregation). The responses are very negative, saying it's "creepy" and what not.

While this might just be standard Internet Mormon-bashing, I can see how it might come across that way to outsiders. A very good reason not to do such a thing.

Agreed.

I know their intentions are good, but I've never been particularly fond of a parent telling a child what to say over the pulpit during a testimony meeting. It's one of those things only gives the Mormon bashers that much more ammunition.

[Duncan]

Suffer the little children to come unto me

I agree but "suffer" might be the key word sometimes! haha!

[rongo]

It's standard procedure for the bishop or counselor who is conducting to speak in the meeting first. A gentle reminder each month before turning the time over to the congregation I think would put a stop to the practice after not very many months. Not many folks like to be seen as publicly ignoring or defying the bishopric. And the bishopric member could make it clear he is quoting from the handbook, so the instruction would be seen as coming from the Brethren, not just the bishopric.

You would think that it would have a noticeable impact, but Mormons are notorious for hearing counsel directed at them, nodding appreciatively, and then continuting to do what they were just counseled not to. And never seeing the irony staring them in the face, or thinking they were anything but fully compliant. As I alluded to, I saw this myself, in spades, with a poor bishop who had previously been in the stake presidency. And none of the parents thought anything of it.

President Monson has often characterized this phenonemon with a poem:

The sermon was ended

The priest had descended

Much delighted were they

But preferred the old way.

It seems almost like that scene from "The Untouchables," where Al Capone (Robert De Niro) calls a meeting to put a stop to skimming off the top. He pulls out a baseball bat and mentions that his favorite sport is baseball. A man goes to bat alone, runs the bases alone, plays his position alone, but in all of that he is always what? Part. Of. A. Team. During this talk, all of the men are looking knowingly at each other, and murmering their full agreement with everyone that he's saying. Capone works his way around, and beats the man who has been the most vocal in kissing up and obsequiously agreeing with everything. Many members act like this when counsel is given that applies to them: they cluck knowingly about how good the talk was, how spot on it was, but dont' see it as applying to them, and they don't see them as the intended audience. And they blissfully and blithely go on doing what the leaders were trying to steer them from. Brigham Young gave many talks in Journal of Discourses on this tendency of the Saints, using Jesus' phrase "the wicked take the kingdom by violence" in a striking and unique way to describe this phenomenon.

Like I've said, my ward does a really good job with testimonies ------ I've seen much, much worse. And the adults are often worse than the children. I've seen heavy emphasis, using things like an outstanding Ensign article by Elder Jay E. Jensen ("Testimony") that deals directly with this very thing (what testimonies are and are not; no-nos are thank-a-monies, travelogues, sermons, stories with tangential at best relevance, etc.). And the very people who tend to do these things go right on doing them after specific attention is focused on them as things that need to be eliminated.

[Scott Lloyd]

You would think that it would have a noticeable impact, but Mormons are notorious for hearing counsel directed at them, nodding appreciatively, and then continuting to do what they were just counseled not to. And never seeing the irony staring them in the face, or thinking they were anything but fully compliant. As I alluded to, I saw this myself, in spades, with a poor bishop who had previously been in the stake presidency. And none of the parents thought anything of it.

President Monson has often characterized this phenonemon with a poem:

The sermon was ended

The priest had descended

Much delighted were they

But preferred the old way.

It seems almost like that scene from "The Untouchables," where Al Capone (Robert De Niro) calls a meeting to put a stop to skimming off the top. He pulls out a baseball bat and mentions that his favorite sport is baseball. A man goes to bat alone, runs the bases alone, plays his position alone, but in all of that he is always what? Part. Of. A. Team. During this talk, all of the men are looking knowingly at each other, and murmering their full agreement with everyone that he's saying. Capone works his way around, and beats the man who has been the most vocal in kissing up and obsequiously agreeing with everything. Many members act like this when counsel is given that applies to them: they cluck knowingly about how good the talk was, how spot on it was, but dont' see it as applying to them, and they don't see them as the intended audience. And they blissfully and blithely go on doing what the leaders were trying to steer them from. Brigham Young gave many talks in Journal of Discourses on this tendency of the Saints, using Jesus' phrase "the wicked take the kingdom by violence" in a striking and unique way to describe this phenomenon.

Like I've said, my ward does a really good job with testimonies ------ I've seen much, much worse. And the adults are often worse than the children. I've seen heavy emphasis, using things like an outstanding Ensign article by Elder Jay E. Jensen ("Testimony") that deals directly with this very thing (what testimonies are and are not; no-nos are thank-a-monies, travelogues, sermons, stories with tangential at best relevance, etc.). And the very people who tend to do these things go right on doing them after specific attention is focused on them as things that need to be eliminated.

There is much truth in what you say.

And yet, I can't shake the notion that it would be very, very difficult to ignore or rationalize away a clear-cut request such as, "Please, if your children are inclined to bear testimony today, let them do so on their own; do not stand at their side prompting them what to say."

Especially if it were repeated month after month for a while.

But I hasten to acknowledge that I've never been a bishop, and I hope, if I try to follow the strait and narrow, that fate will never befall me.

[gmormon]

.... (Peripheral tangent: Notice I didn't say I was in a bishopric. Executive secretaries are not members of the bishopric; neither are ward clerks. A corollary: Stake executive secretaries and stake clerks are not members of stake presidencies.)

Can't imagine whom you are referring to....

[gmormon]

In someways I miss the old "Juinor Sunday School" program. On Fast Sundays it was our chance as children to bear our Testimonies w/o some of the longwinded adult Testimonies.

Edited March 27, 2012 by gmormon

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

They also learn via the: tell them, showing them, and have them do, method of effective instruction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That makes my argument...thanks.

[LeSellers]

I can't shake the notion that it would be very, very difficult to ignore or rationalize away a clear-cut request such as, "Please, if your children are inclined to bear testimony today, let them do so on their own; do not stand at their side prompting them what to say."

In someways I miss the old "Juinor Sinday School" program. On Fast Sundays it was our chance as children to bear our Testimonies w/o some of the longwinded adult Testimonies.

Primary would be a good place to teach the principle. Perhaps along with Relief Society and Priesthood meetings, too.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

In someways I miss the old "Juinor Sinday School" program.

I'm sure many people do. Although junior sins are not as popular once we've grown up, and most of us don't need much training to become proficient in them.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Can't imagine whom you are referring to....

Well, I didn't have you in mind.

The individual on this board who I have most recently seen saying such a thing is LDSToronto, who erroneously claimed the other day that his past position as a stake executive secretary or clerk (can't remember at the moment which it was) constituted membership in a stake presidency.

[gmormon]

I'm sure many people do. Although junior sins are not as popular once we've grown up, and most of us don't need much training to become proficient in them.

Lehi

I was hoping I fixed that before anybody saw that

[gmormon]

Well, I didn't have you in mind.

The individual on this board who I have most recently seen saying such a thing is LDSToronto, who erroneously claimed the other day that his past position as a stake executive secretary or clerk (can't remember at the moment which it was) constituted membership in a stake presidency.

I actually knew who you where refering to. As a ex Ward Clerk who survived several Bishopric releases ... I also recognized the error of his statements.

[BlueDreams]

I love hearing little children's testimonies. They're my favorite part of testimony meeting sometimes. Some of them may be rote (sometimes that'll bother me when they say the exact same thing verbatim), but when you get to know a number of those kids, their hearts and love for the things they mention usually aren't. I've known plenty of children whose testimonies put most adults to shame. So in general I don't doubt their sincerity.

I haven't seen too many children who parrot their parents. A few that get stage fright and look to their parent's for help. And a couple of primary aged siblings that'll go up together and the older one will whisper to the younger. But that's about it. Maybe I'm just to eager to see children (being at college in a singles ward will do that to you), but whenever I see that I just think its a cute expression of love....it's kinda endearing.

With luv,

BD

[Pahoran]

I was executive secretary to a bishop who made it a point. And I think that was even before the handbook contained that instruction.

(Peripheral tangent: Notice I didn't say I was in a bishopric. Executive secretaries are not members of the bishopric; neither are ward clerks. A corollary: Stake executive secretaries and stake clerks are not members of stake presidencies.)

Oddly enough, I don't think there's very much confusion on this point among actual members. The confusion, if that's what we want to call it, comes from people inflating their credentials for less-informed others.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Evergrow]

People cry all the time about "brainwashing" in Mormonism.

What they forget is that everyone and everything "brainwashes" us. However, ultimately at some point we ALL go our own ways, having our own interests, thus most of a group aren't necessarily brainwashed.

Take Anti-Mormonism within Evangelicalism. It's all through those religions, yet most in those religions don't really get all into it. True, a large majority does, but most don't. So, even if for example "some" are so-called brainwashed in mormonism and can't think for themselves, the fact is most aren't. Further, I believe there is even very few at all brainwashed in Mormonism. With the LDS emphasis on living in the world but not of it, with it's entirely "freedom" based theology, with it's doctrines on Education, on and on, no reasonable person can actually claim that LDS are ultimately actually brainwashed.

All brainwashing is really is education and training. It only gets to be the "brainwashing" the bad thing when it's actually a bad thing, where people can't think for themselves, people don't have freedom, etc. LDS while trained to be spiritual minded, are also trained to think and do for ourselves, thus clearly Mormonism doesn't fit in the "bad" brainwashing category.

As much as our natural man minds might want to cringe in seeing children bear their testimony's, we need to think bigger and beyond such simple thinking. Note, this is why ex and anti's have such a problem, because like with everything else, they are unable to think bigger and see the whole and actual truth in relation to mormonism. They have chosen the dark side.

[Storm Rider]

Well, I didn't have you in mind.

The individual on this board who I have most recently seen saying such a thing is LDSToronto, who erroneously claimed the other day that his past position as a stake executive secretary or clerk (can't remember at the moment which it was) constituted membership in a stake presidency.

I thought when he said he was in a stake presidency that he was one of the counselors. Being a SES is not a member of a stake presidency and saying otherwise is an arrogant attempt to aggrandize oneself. This leaves a sour taste in my mouth and further lowers my perception of this gentleman.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oddly enough, I don't think there's very much confusion on this point among actual members. The confusion, if that's what we want to call it, comes from people inflating their credentials for less-informed others.

Regards,

Pahoran

Indeed.

i have observed it happen so often now that I have taken to probing whenever someone with an axe to grind claims current or past membership in a bishopric or stake presidency. I will ask, "Which counselor are/were you, first or second?" assuming that if they had been the bishop or stake president, they would have said so straight up.

Virtually always, they either dodge or ignore the question.

[Scott Lloyd]

I love hearing little children's testimonies. They're my favorite part of testimony meeting sometimes. Some of them may be rote (sometimes that'll bother me when they say the exact same thing verbatim), but when you get to know a number of those kids, their hearts and love for the things they mention usually aren't. I've known plenty of children whose testimonies put most adults to shame. So in general I don't doubt their sincerity.

I haven't seen too many children who parrot their parents. A few that get stage fright and look to their parent's for help. And a couple of primary aged siblings that'll go up together and the older one will whisper to the younger. But that's about it. Maybe I'm just to eager to see children (being at college in a singles ward will do that to you), but whenever I see that I just think its a cute expression of love....it's kinda endearing.

With luv,

BD

I love hearing them bear testimony as well. I just think it inappropriate (and, as I've shown, my thinking coincides with Church policy) to have someone standing there prompting them what to say, whether it be a parent or an older sibling.

It's not the fault of the kids. Parents need to assume more responsibility in this matter.

[Sky]

(Peripheral tangent: Notice I didn't say I was in a bishopric. Executive secretaries are not members of the bishopric; neither are ward clerks. A corollary: Stake executive secretaries and stake clerks are not members of stake presidencies.)

I don’t dispute that this is technically true. But oftentimes men who serve in these callings are treated as if they are a part of bishoprics and stake presidencies. They work side-by-side with them and attend all the extra meetings, as well as being kept in the loop with almost everything that happens. I say this as somebody has served in this kind of calling. I’m not bragging. But it’s more of a gray area for me.

[Pahoran]

I don’t dispute that this is technically true. But oftentimes men who serve in these callings are treated as if they are a part of bishoprics and stake presidencies. They work side-by-side with them and attend all the extra meetings, as well as being kept in the loop with almost everything that happens. I say this as somebody has served in this kind of calling. I’m not bragging. But it’s more of a gray area for me.

I don't wish to be disagreeable, but I can't imagine what could be gray about it.

In next month's Ensign, when you open it up to the middle pages and see the photos of the current GA's, how many faces do you expect to see under the heading "The First Presidency?"

How many do you expect to see under "The Presiding Bishopric?"

Note that both of those quorums have clerks and secretaries. Do you notice how the clerks and secretaries are not pictured, nor are they named when the Church is asked to sustain the GA's?

Next time you're in Stake Conference, listen to how the Stake Presidency is sustained. After the First Presidency and the Twelve, you'll hear something like the following:

"All other General Authorities and General officers of the Church as presently constituted: all those in favour, manifest it; any opposed, manifest it.

"As the presidency of the Lake Woebegone Michigan Stake: Uriah Henry Higginbottom, President; Orrin Porter Rockwell Jones, First Counselor; Vijay Ravinder Singh Patel, Second Counselor: all those in favour, manifest it; any opposed, manifest it."

Then notice that secretaries and clerks are sustained separately.

I can't see that there is really any ambiguity here. I've been a Exec sec. I never held myself out as being part of the bishopric, for the good and entirely sufficient reason that I wasn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

OK. Executive Secretaries and Clerks aren't in bishoprics or stake presidencies, but they are indispensible!

[Scott Lloyd]

I don’t dispute that this is technically true. But oftentimes men who serve in these callings are treated as if they are a part of bishoprics and stake presidencies. They work side-by-side with them and attend all the extra meetings, as well as being kept in the loop with almost everything that happens. I say this as somebody has served in this kind of calling. I’m not bragging. But it’s more of a gray area for me.

It's really not all that gray when you consider the distinction in ecclesiastical standing, function and authority.

We had a thread on this topic a while ago. On that occasion, I wrote the following:

Ward clerks and executive secretaries are important and fulfill vital roles. That's why I think it unnecessary to inflate them by trying to imbue them with ecclesiastical standing they do not have.

... Ward clerks and executive secretaries attend bishopric meetings because it would be difficult or impossible to fulfill their unique roles otherwise. They do not conduct meetings; they do not preside over meetings in the absence of the bishop; they do not interview members to determine worthiness to go to the temple or serve in callings; they do not issue callings; they do not receive tithes and offerings; they do not supervise presidencies of auxiliary organizations in the ward.

It is entirely right and proper for a bishop to seek and receive advice and opinions individually and collectively from the ward council. In fact, Elder M. Russell Ballard has emphasized such, even writing a book called Counseling with Our Councils. Accordingly, the bishop might consult with the executive secretary or ward clerk. He might also do so with the high priests group leader, the elders quorum president, the Relief Society president, the Young Women president, the Young Men president or the Primary president. Doing so does not make them de facto or quasi bishopric members.

I have been an executive secretary under two bishoprics. At no time did I consider my calling equal in standing to the counselors in the bishopric, and I never regarded myself as a member of the bishopric, "social" or otherwise.

If you look elsewhere in that thread, you'll find a couple of official Church sources that define the bishopric as a bishop and his two counselors.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Sky]

I don't wish to be disagreeable, but I can't imagine what could be gray about it.

In next month's Ensign, when you open it up to the middle pages and see the photos of the current GA's, how many faces do you expect to see under the heading "The First Presidency?"

How many do you expect to see under "The Presiding Bishopric?"

Note that both of those quorums have clerks and secretaries. Do you notice how the clerks and secretaries are not pictured, nor are they named when the Church is asked to sustain the GA's?

Next time you're in Stake Conference, listen to how the Stake Presidency is sustained. After the First Presidency and the Twelve, you'll hear something like the following:

"All other General Authorities and General officers of the Church as presently constituted: all those in favour, manifest it; any opposed, manifest it.

"As the presidency of the Lake Woebegone Michigan Stake: Uriah Henry Higginbottom, President; Orrin Porter Rockwell Jones, First Counselor; Vijay Ravinder Singh Patel, Second Counselor: all those in favour, manifest it; any opposed, manifest it."

Then notice that secretaries and clerks are sustained separately.

I can't see that there is really any ambiguity here. I've been a Exec sec. I never held myself out as being part of the bishopric, for the good and entirely sufficient reason that I wasn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

Fair enough.

This issue is off the topic of this thread, anyway. Maybe somebody could start a new thread if they want to address it further.