Reverence In The Chapel...i Feel Like A Fossil

[Ginger Snaps]

I don't. I usually read a paper copy at home and use a set for my studying but I never cart my scriptures to church.

I don't even usually read my hard copies anymore.  I'm a big fan of features on the scripture app.  I use the tagging and linking features heavily. 

[cynth]

I look at my four bookshelves filled with books I have read and enjoyed and then at my electronic device that could hold thousands of times as many books and sometimes feel the same way.

I'm with you on that, Nehor!  It's a bitter-sweet conundrum.

[filovirus]

I don't even usually read my hard copies anymore.  I'm a big fan of features on the scripture app.  I use the tagging and linking features heavily. 

The only reason I use my hard copies is so that my children can see I am reading the scriptures. I am a fan of showing rather than telling. This is for personal study at home. I don't lug them to church.

[The Nehor]

I don't even usually read my hard copies anymore.  I'm a big fan of features on the scripture app.  I use the tagging and linking features heavily. 

 

I write a lot in the margins and cross out parts of scriptures and write in other stuff. Hard to do electronically.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

Scott Lloyd: 'Well, I got the impression you are opposed to anyone bringing an electronic device to church and using it for any reason. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.'

 

I already did clarify.  Several times I clarified. And once again in my comment that you quoted I clarified.

 

 

 

So what is the clarification? Are you not opposed to and contemptuous of the use of electronic devices at church? If not, why did you indicate you were? Obviously, I'm still confused over your position. And asserting that you "already did clarify" is not helping me understand you.

 

Scott Lloyd: "The Lord has placed modern-day technological miracles in our hands to facilitate our serving him and others as we personally gaining knowledge and understanding. I see nothing wrong with making use of them during the three hour block. You have yet to show how how this necessarily or unavoidably detracts from or hinders worshiping God. Until you or someone else does so, I cannot take seriously the notion that using an electronic device at church should be forbidden or discouraged."

 

In what way are others required to SHOW you how you should worship?  You feel you know the God has placed electronic devices in your hands to be used during worship, I feel differently.  I have stated my observations and opinion, why on earth would you suppose I am determined that you should use any opinion of mine as a condition for your change?  I thought we were having a discussion, not vying for the right to force others to bend to their will.  I 'take seriously' your opinion that you need to check maps, membership lists, stake calendars, lesson plans, etc., as a part of your worship, I would expect that you would 'take seriously' my opinion that sacred and respectful worship of God does NOT include an electrionic device.

 

 

Your approach seems to have been to shame others into not using their electronic devices at church, because, in some nebulous way you have yet to define, doing so precludes "appreciat[ing] the beauty and spirituality found in the spoken word" and feeling and observing "the sacredness of the religious service" and improving "the condition of your soul and spirit." No, I can't take that seriously. I'll grant that you are entitled to hold that opinion, but it strikes me as wrong-headed, and I am not apt to take it to heart.

 

On a final note, I appreciate very much the board rules that allow us to focus on the ideas being discussed.

 

 

 

Don't know what, if anything, that has to do with my post, but I too appreciate those rules.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't even usually read my hard copies anymore.  I'm a big fan of features on the scripture app.  I use the tagging and linking features heavily. 

As do I.

 

And you can do this with the electronic versions in a way you never could with the hard copies.

[mnn727]

Its a big push in my Stake. Bishopric must be seated 15 minutes before start time. Deacons also must be seated and if not all there older Priesthood should(and do) automatically sit down, any late deacon does not replace an adult already seated to pass the Sacrament.

We had a 2 hour meeting (2nd and 3rd hours) with everyone 12 years and up, about Sabbath day observance including Reverence in the Chapel 6 weeks ago.

[ttribe]

Its a big push in my Stake. Bishopric must be seated 15 minutes before start time. Deacons also must be seated and if not all there older Priesthood should(and do) automatically sit down, any late deacon does not replace an adult already seated to pass the Sacrament.

We had a 2 hour meeting (2nd and 3rd hours) with everyone 12 years and up, about Sabbath day observance including Reverence in the Chapel 6 weeks ago.

 

Were you also told how many steps you could take on the Sabbath, as well?

[Scott Lloyd]

Its a big push in my Stake. Bishopric must be seated 15 minutes before start time. Deacons also must be seated and if not all there older Priesthood should(and do) automatically sit down, any late deacon does not replace an adult already seated to pass the Sacrament.

We had a 2 hour meeting (2nd and 3rd hours) with everyone 12 years and up, about Sabbath day observance including Reverence in the Chapel 6 weeks ago.

I know there's a firm emphasis right now on improving Sabbath day observance, including reverence during sacrament meeting; perhaps what you describe here is in line with this. Bishops were instructed to discuss the matter with their ward councils. Perhaps these are things your ward council came up with.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

I have had exactly the opposite experience, have you actually attended other services?  my husband is Catholic, and I have attended more than 4 other parishes multiple times, plus many others occasionally, and I have never had your experience.  I have found reverence pre-, during, and post-services, and I have NEVER ONCE seen an electronic device out during a Catholic service. 

 

When my Catholic relatives accompany me to Mormon services, I always have to warn them in advance of the bizarrely excessive noise level, the massive and constant food consumption, the ubiquitous use of electronic devices, adult and youth alike, the excessive touching among all sexes and ages(back rubs, neck rubs, head rubs, hair stroking, etc.), and the likelihood that children and babies will be louder than the miked speaker, with no effort from parents to prevent disruptions.  Invariably, they are quite shaken and in utter shock when we leave a meeting.  I keep getting asked, why are Mormons, youth and adults alike, so immature? Why are they so disrespectful of God?  I have no answer. 

 

So yes, I do agree with one of your comments, compared to Mormon irreverence, other services are indeed absurdly different.  How did this culture arise?  Why is this behavior considered acceptable? 

Maybe because Catholics meet for under an hour and we meet for 3, plus many are involved in one or another aspect of the 3 hour block so add some prep time to that too.

Been to many Catholic Masses, I'll take our meetings any day.

[mnn727]

    We used to have 2 Primary children stand with therearms folded on each side of the pulpit as a reverence reminder to everyone. We need to get back that.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

That never worked

[cynth]

Scott Lloyd, on 29 Sept 2015 - 9:01 PM, said:

"[1]So what is the clarification? Are you not opposed to and contemptuous of the use of electronic devices at church? If not, why did you indicate you were? Obviously, I'm still confused over your position. And asserting that you "already did clarify" is not helping me understand you.

 

[2]Your approach seems to have been to shame others into not using their electronic devices at church, because, in some nebulous way you have yet to define, doing so precludes "appreciat[ing] the beauty and spirituality found in the spoken word" and feeling and observing "the sacredness of the religious service" and improving "the condition of your soul and spirit."

[3] No, I can't take that seriously.  I'll grant that you are entitled to hold that opinion, but it strikes me as wrong-headed, and I am not apt to take it to heart.

 

 

[4]Don't know what, if anything, that has to do with my post, but I too appreciate those rules."

 

 

To respond:

 

[1]My previous statements included no 'contemptuous' opinions, you are inaccurately reading that negativity into my comment.  Your interpretation is your right, but it is not what I said.  Your question was asked and answered already, no point in re-hashing.

 

[2]Your opinion of my approach again introduces another egregious negativity 'shaming;' again, you have a right to your interpretation, but again you are wrong.  I was describing experiences and opinions that are different than yours, no need to automatically feel shamed by the differences.

 

[3] I never asked you to take my opinion seriously.  Although do I consider it part of a respectful exchange for both to take the others' opinions seriously, that's my rule; if it is not yours, I certainly wouldn't force it upon you.

 

Again, you are certainly within your rights to think my opinion is wrong-headed; of course you will respect my right to think your approach is wrong-headed as well.

 

And last, taking a person's opinion seriously certainly requires mutual respect but it does not require one to 'take it to heart,' I am surprised to find that apparently having a discussion of different opinions must end in one side bending to the other!  It does not.

 

[4]Great, me too.

[cynth]

Maybe because Catholics meet for under an hour and we meet for 3, plus many are involved in one or another aspect of the 3 hour block so add some prep time to that too.

Been to many Catholic Masses, I'll take our meetings any day.

Yes, that is definitely a difference.  I respect your preference for our meetings, I am certainly enjoying the Masses I attend.

[Raingirl]

 

 

 

Scott Lloyd: 'Well, I got the impression you are opposed to anyone bringing an electronic device to church and using it for any reason. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.'

 

I already did clarify.  Several times I clarified. And once again in my comment that you quoted I clarified.

 

Scott Lloyd: "The Lord has placed modern-day technological miracles in our hands to facilitate our serving him and others as we personally gaining knowledge and understanding. I see nothing wrong with making use of them during the three hour block. You have yet to show how how this necessarily or unavoidably detracts from or hinders worshiping God. Until you or someone else does so, I cannot take seriously the notion that using an electronic device at church should be forbidden or discouraged."

 

In what way are others required to SHOW you how you should worship?  You feel you know the God has placed electronic devices in your hands to be used during worship, I feel differently.  I have stated my observations and opinion, why on earth would you suppose I am determined that you should use any opinion of mine as a condition for your change?  I thought we were having a discussion, not vying for the right to force others to bend to their will.  I 'take seriously' your opinion that you need to check maps, membership lists, stake calendars, lesson plans, etc., as a part of your worship, I would expect that you would 'take seriously' my opinion that sacred and respectful worship of God does NOT include an electrionic device.

 

On a final note, I appreciate very much the board rules that allow us to focus on the ideas being discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I frankly don't understand nor agree with your opinion that using an electronic device for reading during sacrament meeting automatically means that the participant is not being "sacred and respectful".

 

It is simple reality in this day and age that many books - including the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc., - are available electronically and this is the way many people choose (or need) to read these books and other things. On Kindles, iPads, etc.  It's simply a different vehicle for the same words.  It's the same books, the same scriptures, simply being read via a different format.  A screen instead of a printed page.

 

So how is it exactly that the act of reading scriptures on a screen is automatically not "sacred and respectful"?  

 

Is the only "sacred and respectful" way to read scripture via the printed page?  Exactly what about the printed page makes it "sacred and respectful"?  Could you explain, please?

 

Am I to believe that the elderly lady who sits next to me at sacrament meeting and reads her scriptures on an electronic device because it is easier for her visually and is less weight than a quad for her to carry around....is somehow being less "sacred and respectful" for reading scripture this way?  You have never met this wonderful member, yet somehow you are sure she is not "sacred and respectful" because she reads from an electronic device.

 

I hope you're not still around if the day ever comes when conventional books cease to exist.  You probably couldn't handle the blatant "disrespect" that would abound everywhere.

[cynth]

I frankly don't understand nor agree with your opinion that using an electronic device for reading during sacrament meeting automatically means that the participant is not being "sacred and respectful".

 

It is simple reality in this day and age that many books - including the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc., - are available electronically and this is the way many people choose (or need) to read these books and other things. On Kindles, iPads, etc.  It's simply a different vehicle for the same words.  It's the same books, the same scriptures, simply being read via a different format.  A screen instead of a printed page.

 

So how is it exactly that the act of reading scriptures on a screen is automatically not "sacred and respectful"?  

 

Is the only "sacred and respectful" way to read scripture via the printed page?  Exactly what about the printed page makes it "sacred and respectful"?  Could you explain, please?

 

Am I to believe that the elderly lady who sits next to me at sacrament meeting and reads her scriptures on an electronic device because it is easier for her visually and is less weight than a quad for her to carry around....is somehow being less "sacred and respectful" for reading scripture this way?  You have never met this wonderful member, yet somehow you are sure she is not "sacred and respectful" because she reads from an electronic device.

 

I hope you're not still around if the day ever comes when conventional books cease to exist.  You probably couldn't handle the blatant "disrespect" that would abound everywhere.

So everyone on their phone is just reading scriptures?  That's not the topic I thought we were discussing in this thread.  I'm happy  to have a discussion about the ideas presented so far in the thread but I'm not sure what concept you are attempting to debate in your final sentence.

[Scott Lloyd]

So everyone on their phone is just reading scriptures? 

Probably not, but what they are doing with their devices is really not your affair anyway.

 

It goes back to what I said earlier: Fussing and fuming about people using their gadgets at church does not serve the cause of worship or "partaking of the beauty and spirituality found in the spoken word" or any of the other things you are worried about them missing out on because they won't leave their devices home.

 

If you feel that having a smartphone at church detracts from the spirituality of the experience, by all means, leave it home. That would no doubt be the best thing for you -- but not necessarily for other folks.

[Scott Lloyd]

[1]My previous statements included no 'contemptuous' opinions, you are inaccurately reading that negativity into my comment.  Your interpretation is your right, but it is not what I said.  Your question was asked and answered already, no point in re-hashing.

 

[2]Your opinion of my approach again introduces another egregious negativity 'shaming;' again, you have a right to your interpretation, but again you are wrong.  I was describing experiences and opinions that are different than yours, no need to automatically feel shamed by the differences.

 

In your initial post you spoke of your embarrassment when taking your Catholic relatives to LDS worship services, and you detailed a number of reasons, which, as I recall, included the "consumption of food," the noise from children during the service, people touching each other with back rubs,  stroking of hair and what not. Among those nasty details you listed was the use of electronic devices by people in the congregation. Taken in context, it was all very disapproving, and yes, it came across as contemptuous. I find it very difficult to interpret it as being otherwise, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

I've pointed out that there are a number of possible appropriate uses for electronic devices at church, and that their presence need not be automatically taken as a show of disrespect or irreverence, thus my unwillingness to take seriously your condemnation of such use of the devices.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cynth]

Probably not, but what they are doing with their devices is really not your affair anyway.

 

It goes back to what I said earlier: Fussing and fuming about people using their gadgets at church does not serve the cause of worship or "partaking of the beauty and spirituality found in the spoken word" or any of the other things you are worried about them missing out on because they won't leave their devices home.

 

If you feel that having a smartphone at church detracts from the spirituality of the experience, by all means, leave it home. That would no doubt be the best thing for you -- but not necessarily for other folks.

Re: third paragraph, then we agree, we have different opinions, and expressing them is not the same as imposing them on others.

 

Re: paragraph 1, did you read the post I was responding to?  I was asking her a question based on her post, no need for the response to get personal.

 

Re: paragraph 2, again a lot of personal comment that in no way could or should be assumed by my post, so I will not respond, as per board rules.

Edited September 30, 2015 by cynth

[cynth]

In your initial post you spoke of your embarrassment when taking your Catholic relatives to LDS worship services, and you detailed a number of reasons, which, as I recall, included the "consumption of food," the noise from children during the service, people touching each other with back rubs,  stroking of hair and what not. Among those nasty details you listed was the use of electronic devices by people in the congregation. Taken in context, it was all very disapproving, and yes, it came across as contemptuous. I find it very difficult to interpret it as being otherwise, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

I've pointed out that there are a number of possible appropriate uses for electronic devices at church, and that their presence need not be automatically taken as a show of disrespect or irreverence, thus my unwillingness to take seriously your condemnation of such use of the devices.

First Para: Yes, I described my experience; if you choose to interpret my post as having 'nasty' details, disapproving and contemptuous, that is your interpretation, I have already stated and clarified otherwise.  I feel people's initial states of mind frequently color their interpretations.  If one is looking for 'nasty,' invariably one will find it. 

 

2nd Para: Yes, you did express your opinion, as I did mine.  I don't think it's necessary in a discussion topic to continue to re-hash the exact same opinions and the exact same mis-interpretation even after it has been addressed multiple times.  And yes, I acknowledged already your unwillingness to take seriously my opinion, as well as noting that I believe a fruitful discussion is based on respecting others' opinions; this is a rule I will continue to stand by.

 

And again, expressing my opinion is NOT an insistence that you agree with it, like it, take it to heart, or even take it seriously, although I would be disappointed to find mutual respect is not an option in a discussion taking place on this board.

[Raingirl]

So everyone on their phone is just reading scriptures?  That's not the topic I thought we were discussing in this thread.  I'm happy  to have a discussion about the ideas presented so far in the thread but I'm not sure what concept you are attempting to debate in your final sentence.

Changing the goal posts?

You made wholesale statements in judgment of using electronic devices in church and people somehow being "less" for doing so. You did not specify that your objection was just to using electronic devices for such things as surfing the net during services. I doubt many would disagree that that is inappropriate. It is your over-the-top judgment of the presence of electronic devices in church at all and your unrighteously judgment of other's hearts and souls that I was calling you on.

So you are now saying that electronic devices are perfectly appropriate for reading scriptures in church, correct?

[Raingirl]

First Para: Yes, I described my experience; if you choose to interpret my post as having 'nasty' details, disapproving and contemptuous, that is your interpretation, I have already stated and clarified otherwise.  I feel people's initial states of mind frequently color their interpretations.  If one is looking for 'nasty,' invariably one will find it. 

 

2nd Para: Yes, you did express your opinion, as I did mine.  I don't think it's necessary in a discussion topic to continue to re-hash the exact same opinions and the exact same mis-interpretation even after it has been addressed multiple times.  And yes, I acknowledged already your unwillingness to take seriously my opinion, as well as noting that I believe a fruitful discussion is based on respecting others' opinions; this is a rule I will continue to stand by.

 

And again, expressing my opinion is NOT an insistence that you agree with it, like it, take it to heart, or even take it seriously, although I would be disappointed to find mutual respect is not an option in a discussion taking place on this board.

Well, gosh, I guess I have a "nasty" mind just like Scott's because I took your post about all the things you disapprove of in LDS services the same way he did. It came across very negatively and judgmental. And contained none of the specifics regarding electronic devices you are now claiming. It was written as a wholesale condemnation of their use. If you feel we are "misinterpreting" the specific words that you wrote, do please explain where in that post you were making reference only to certain kinds of uses of electronic devices. Because it doesn't appear to be there.

Respect is - or should be - a two-way street. I fail to see the respect given by you to others when you make sweeping generalizations about others and the stat of their souls. Especially when you base it in something as ridiculous of what format they use to read written text.

I continue to be in the habit of carrying my quad to church. I am a convert from Judaism so it partially having missed the years of owning traditional scriptures before the advent of electronics, and partially all those years of the Torah (scripture) being read from actual scrolls in services. I enjoy the experience of reading holy books from scrolls and pages. I even had a quad rebound in a particular color leather and that quad has special meaning to me. I also happen to still have an aversion to marking up my scriptures (a carryover from Judaism, I am sure, as even one's finger does not touch the scrolls).

But...that is simply my current preference and I don't - and won't - make judgments about their souls as you have. That is way over the top and out of line.

[Scott Lloyd]

First Para: Yes, I described my experience; if you choose to interpret my post as having 'nasty' details, disapproving and contemptuous, that is your interpretation, I have already stated and clarified otherwise.  I feel people's initial states of mind frequently color their interpretations.  If one is looking for 'nasty,' invariably one will find it. 

 

OK. Can we conclude from this, then, that despite clear indications to the contrary, you do not find the use of electronic devices at church inherently contemptible?

 

2nd Para: Yes, you did express your opinion, as I did mine.  I don't think it's necessary in a discussion topic to continue to re-hash the exact same opinions and the exact same mis-interpretation even after it has been addressed multiple times.  And yes, I acknowledged already your unwillingness to take seriously my opinion, as well as noting that I believe a fruitful discussion is based on respecting others' opinions; this is a rule I will continue to stand by.

 

And again, expressing my opinion is NOT an insistence that you agree with it, like it, take it to heart, or even take it seriously, although I would be disappointed to find mutual respect is not an option in a discussion taking place on this board.

 

You chose to express your opinion in a very strident, no-holds-barred manner, listing several things that embarrass you about the behavior of Church members in sacrament meeting. Use of electronic devices was on the list.

 

This is a public message board. Debate and argumentation are frequently the order of the day here. When you come on so strong, you should not be surprised if there is a bit of push-back.

 

I think it possible to categorically reject an opinion while still respecting the holder of that opinion. I've said that I think your opinion with regard to electronic devices is wrong-headed (and, I will add, misguided). For what it's worth, I will add that I mean by that no reflection on you personally.

 

But you are right about one thing. This conversation has apparently reached the end of its productive value as you have steadfastly declined to substantiate what it is about use of electronic devices at church that makes the practice inherently irreverent, disrespectful, lacking in decorum, or whatever it is about it that you object to.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, gosh, I guess I have a "nasty" mind just like Scott's because I took your post about all the things you disapprove of in LDS services the same way he did. It came across very negatively and judgmental. And contained none of the specifics regarding electronic devices you are now claiming. It was written as a wholesale condemnation of their use. If you feel we are "misinterpreting" the specific words that you wrote, do please explain where in that post you were making reference only to certain kinds of uses of electronic devices. Because it doesn't appear to be there.

Respect is - or should be - a two-way street. I fail to see the respect given by you to others when you make sweeping generalizations about others and the stat of their souls. Especially when you base it in something as ridiculous of what format they use to read written text.

I continue to be in the habit of carrying my quad to church. I am a convert from Judaism so it partially having missed the years of owning traditional scriptures before the advent of electronics, and partially all those years of the Torah (scripture) being read from actual scrolls in services. I enjoy the experience of reading holy books from scrolls and pages. I even had a quad rebound in a particular color leather and that quad has special meaning to me. I also happen to still have an aversion to marking up my scriptures (a carryover from Judaism, I am sure, as even one's finger does not touch the scrolls).

But...that is simply my current preference and I don't - and won't - make judgments about their souls as you have. That is way over the top and out of line.

That's another advantage to use of scriptures in an electronic format: Marks are not forever. You can add or delete marks. cross-references and annotations at will without worrying about ruining a nice, hard-copy edition.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cynth]

OK. Can we conclude from this, then, that despite clear indications to the contrary, you do not find the use of electronic devices at church inherently contemptible?

 

You chose to express your opinion in a very strident, no-holds-barred manner, listing several things that embarrass you about the behavior of Church members in sacrament meeting. Use of electronic devices was on the list.

 

This is a public message board. Debate and argumentation are frequently the order of the day here. When you come on so strong, you should not be surprised if there is a bit of push-back.

 

I think it possible to categorically reject an opinion while still respecting the holder of that opinion. I've said that I think your opinion with regard to electronic devices is wrong-headed (and, I will add, misguided). For what it's worth, I will add that I mean by that no reflection on you personally.

 

But you are right about one thing. This conversation has apparently reached the end of its productive value as you have steadfastly declined to substantiate what it is about use of electronic devices at church that makes the practice inherently irreverent, disrespectful, lacking in decorum, or whatever it is about it that you object to.

You can say what you think I have done, it doesn't make it true.  I prefer to have a discussion without repeatedly telling the other person what they have or have not stated, even when that person states, re-states, and clarifies.  If saying what one means is not an acceptable way to say what one means, then there is no point to further conversation.