Bishop Bans Electronic Devices

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, MosiahFree said:

I can't think of anything more contrary to the Gospel than this notion. I'd simply follow the Bishop's lead and maintain a sweet spirit while doing so, not having access to my tablet for a few hours isn't a back breaking burden, though I can imagine to a modern day teenager this might seem an outrageous demand, but I'm part of this Church to not be like the rest of the world. 

 

9 hours ago, MosiahFree said:

I don't think setting aside our electronic devices for a few hours one day of the week is a detriment to anything but the pixelated glow of idolatry by way technocracy. Why forsake obedience for something so trivial? This isn't Chick-fil-A, it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and we don't tell our appointed leaders we are going to go above their heads if we are not allowed our smart phones, especially if we already own the material in print!

Local leaders sometimes go off the rails in the things they require and need to be corrected.

Last year, a stake president in Boston decided on his own he was going to shorten the meeting block time by an hour. Church headquarters shut down that initiative literally within hours after it surfaced. 

President Monson has told of an experience that happened when he was a bishop. They were ordaining someone in priesthood meeting. The high councilor was going to make the person being ordained sit facing the temple. Bishop Monson recognized that as being contrary to the established procedure and, as bishop, he refused to allow it. 

Suppose enough of the settlers in Iron County had refused to go along with the unrighteouss directives of their leaders, thus hindering the perpetration of the Mountain Meadows Massacre long enough for the directive to arrive from Brigham Young to leave the emigrants alone. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that particular bishop is riding off on a hobby horse and needs to be reigned in. ... 

No, he doesn't.  He might need to be reined in, but ...   (As the noted English Professor from the University of Southern Nowhere, Dr. Festus Doofus, Ph.D., put it, "Them homophones, they's tricky thangs!")

Sorry, Scott.  You should know me well enough by now that resisting the impulse to write stuff like this when I spot things such as this is futile!  

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you seriously saying that you can't think of anything more contrary to the gospel than following a bishop's unreasonable dictates? Yikes.

The gospel of Jesus Christ has NOTHING to do with obeying the whims of a bishop regarding electronic devices. It's about following the example of Jesus. And if I recall correctly, Jesus regularly railed against the Pharisees and Sadducees for inflicting additional commandments on the people and relying too much on the law.

The bishop is not Jesus and he does not create commandments in the name of God. That's called taking the Lord's name in vain.

This is weird HJW. You keep posting things I agree with. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, he doesn't.  He might need to be reined in, but ...   (As the noted English Professor from the University of Southern Nowhere, Dr. Festus Doofus, Ph.D., put it, "Them homophones, they's tricky thangs!")

Sorry, Scott.  You should know me well enough by now that resisting the impulse to write stuff like this when I spot things such as this is futile!  

I can't very well object when I'm like that too! 

I'll go back and fix it. 

[mtomm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is weird HJW. You keep posting things I agree with. 

I keep repping Scott's posts and it feels really weird. It's a pleasant weird though.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Brother Wagon,

I think this policy is overkill but I would not go as far to say that bishiop has nothing to do with Jesus.  The bishop represents Jesus in worthiness interviews etc... and Jesus has given the bishop responsibility to take care of the ward.  The bishop does is the Lord's representative to ward members I think.

Q

The bishop is the Lord's representative only insofar as he is properly representing the Lord. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I keep repping Scott's posts and it feels really weird. It's a pleasant weird though.

I gave you one too. 

Weird can be refreshing sometimes. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, ladyshanae said:

To me it's less about WHAT he's saying and more about the control issue - why can't I decide what's appropriate for me and my family to do during the sacrament so long as it's not disrupting the reverence/Spirit of the meeting. You know, aside from the fact that I have two children in particular who don't understand what whispering is (5 and 2 year olds - only do much can be done LOL).

If there is a ward-wide issue worth technological issues during Sacrament Meeting, address it in a third hour meeting on a fifth Sunday. Otherwise, discuss it with the people who might be causing issues. And/or give counsel from the pulpit to encourage limiting the use of your devices during Sacrament Meeting. But an all out ban? No, that's overstepping. And if a conversation with the Bishop didn't change either of our views, you bet I'd be knocking on the Stake President's door.

D&C 121:41 - 43

You got it, Sister.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can't very well object when I'm like that too! 

I'll go back and fix it. 

Heck, Scott, I thought you had intentionally created a double entendre.  I'm so disappointed now.l

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Our perspectives are so different.  I believe the bishop *is* in control over sacrament meeting.  It is his stewardship.  I feel really uncomfortable acting as if I have received an exception from the inspiration given to the bishop *regarding his own stewardship.*  Sacrament meeting isn't mine to control. 

Like I said, I don't personally like this new policy and I'm very tempted to ignore it or simply conceal my iPad (it is a mini so that wouldnt be too hard to hide in a book or something).  But I also want to respect the bishop's stewardship and inspiration for the ward.  I could just sit in the foyer so we'll see how this plays out.  I think other members of my ward have strong feelings about this too.

I wonder how he thinks he's going to enforce it. There are bound to be newcomers, visitors, etc. who haven't heard of the directive, or those who, as you say, will simply ignore it as something the bishop isn't entitled to require. 

Is he going to repeat the mandate from the pulpit every Sunday? That's apt to be more distracting than allowing people to go ahead and use their devices. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Heck, Scott, I thought you had intentionally created a double entendre.  I'm so disappointed now.l

I wish I were that clever. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You got it, Sister.

Too bad we can't rep Sister Lady Shanae. Is it because she is still a very new poster? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 There are bound to be newcomers, visitors, etc. who haven't heard of the directive...

Is he going to repeat the mandate from the pulpit every Sunday?  

What about stating that gay marriage is a serious and dirty sin every Sunday? Do you hope all American Bishops repeat the position of the church from the pulpit every Sunday? I have a feeling you are going to say yes.    

Edited June 24, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[6EQUJ5]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The bishop is the Lord's representative only insofar as he is properly representing the Lord. 

That's what I'm struggling with.  I don't know if he is representing the Lord or not in this situation and I doesn't feel quite right to start picking and choosing  counsel from priesthood leaders.

 

Edited June 24, 2016 by 6EQUJ5

[6EQUJ5]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder how he thinks he's going to enforce it. There are bound to be newcomers, visitors, etc. who haven't heard of the directive, or those who, as you say, will simply ignore it as something the bishop isn't entitled to require. 

Is he going to repeat the mandate from the pulpit every Sunday? That's apt to be more distracting than allowing people to go ahead and use their devices. 

He mentioned that there would be a permanent note about it in the ward bulletin and then make occasional announcements.  I think we could also put up a sign outsite the chapel on sundays letting people know these devices are not allowed in teh chapel.

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

BTW- out of curiosity, how old is this bishop?

Late 30s

[toon]

2 hours ago, mtomm said:

Guess I would have to go back to playing tictactoe with piece of paper and a pencil if I was in that ward.  But the bishop probably already banned that, too. Because distractions in sacrament meeting are a new thing.  

How about being greatful that people made the effort to show up.  

Or perhaps focus efforts on improving the preparedness of speaker and the qualify of their talks, special musical numbers, interesting lessons, etc. 

Not everyone does, but many use their devices because they're just so bored. 

[sheilauk]

I have some sympathy for the Bishop.  The use of gadgets has increased dramatically in the last five years and people seem to be unable to part with them even for a second. 

The Brethren have commented on the use of devices.  In 2008 Elder Oaks gave a talk to young people called Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament and said: 

"Sacrament meeting is not a time for reading books or magazines. Young people, it is not a time for whispered conversations on cell phones or for texting persons at other locations. When we partake of the sacrament, we make a sacred covenant that we will always remember the Savior. How sad to see persons obviously violating that covenant in the very meeting where they are making it."

For something more recent:

April 2015 President Uchtdorf The Gift of Grace

"Are we on autopilot, going through the motions, attending our meetings, yawning through Gospel Doctrine class, and perhaps checking our cell phones during sacrament service?"

I think there needs to be a compromise.  An outright ban is probably going too far, but encouraging people (even children) not to use them in Sacrament is okay.  And I see no reason for anyone to have them whilst the sacrament is being passed.  Last year, my Bishop, as part of keeping the Sabbath holy, asked adults not to use them in the Sacrament meeting but they are not "banned".  I do sympathize with those adults who find it difficult to concentrate, I do too.  So I make notes in a notebook which really helps me concentrate and listen.  After all, the speakers have spent some time in preparing their talks, we should take the time to listen - its only just over an hour.  The problem with electronic devices is that it is too easy to get lost in them and distracted to the point where you're not listening.  I do have a tablet (no cell phone) but its not the same at helping me to listen though I do use it the other meetings to read/follow the lesson and find scriptures quickly.  Even then, I make notes more than I use the tablet.  (Not that it always works - there are times still when I drift off!).  Everyone needs to find their own way I guess but I think we also need to be really honest with ourselves about whether or not we are using them as an aid or just to help us get through the meeting.  And there seems to me to be no reason a Bishop can't raise the issue and ask us to think about our use of electronic devices.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Brother Wagon,

I think this policy is overkill but I would not go as far to say that bishiop has nothing to do with Jesus.  The bishop represents Jesus in worthiness interviews etc... and Jesus has given the bishop responsibility to take care of the ward.  The bishop does is the Lord's representative to ward members I think.

Q

Your comment reminded me of this quote from Joseph Smith.

Quote

"We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them -- even if they knew it was wrong. But such obedience as this is worse than folly to us. It is slavery in the extreme. The man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise this idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves." -- Joseph Smith, Jr. in the Millennial Star, volume 14, number 38, pages 593-595."

 

[mnn727]

3/4 of my ward uses electronic scriptures, including the Bishop.

I used to need a briefcase to carry everything that now is on my phone

I will never carry my heavy(large Print)  scriptures again, no matter what a Bishop says. The Church supplies electronic scriptures (and more) so no one has the right to ban them IMHO.

Now if the Bishop is having problems with phones ringing, people texting etc, he can ask they be silenced - no problem with that. But we rarely have that problem in our Ward.

Edited June 24, 2016 by mnn727

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

He mentioned that there would be a permanent note about it in the ward bulletin and then make occasional announcements.  I think we could also put up a sign outsite the chapel on sundays letting people know these devices are not allowed in teh chapel.

As I said, a worse distraction than letting people use their devices. 

If some decide they're going to ignore the directive because they regard it (as I do) as silly and needless meddling, is he going to dig in his heels and take further action? Voila! Instant conflict. Not a good thing for a Church setting. Is this a hill he wants to die on when use of devices is freely permitted nearly everywhere else in the Church? 

Where does one draw the line? What if a bishop decides to ban the wearing of denim skirts to church by women or the wearing of brown shoes with blue suits by men because he thinks it irreverent and not in keeping with the Sabbath? Will each and every bishop thereafter decide he gets to enforce his own quirky tastes?

Edited June 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

But, the tablets are great for the scriptures (and hymns) and I can't see banning those.   I see very few adult members using their physical scriptures anymore.

 

Phones can have the same Gospel Library that tablets have

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

That's what I'm struggling with.  I don't know if he is representing the Lord or not in this situation and I doesn't feel quite right to start picking and choosing  counsel from priesthood leaders.

 

Sounds like you don't feel quite right about following this particular  directive. I'm afraid you have a tough choice. 

I've mentioned some examples of how local leaders occasionally make requirements they're not entitled to. There's nothing wrong with taking things up the line when you're not sure. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Phones can have the same Gospel Library that tablets have

Yes, I know..  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sounds like you don't feel quite right about following this particular  directive. I'm afraid you have a tough choice. 

I've mentioned some examples of how local leaders occasionally make requirements they're not entitled to. There's nothing wrong with taking things up the line when you're not sure. 

If the stake president backed the bishop, what would you do in 6E's situation?  (not a snarky question, just wondering how you would handle that since i know you said you wouldn't follow the bishop's counsel on the ban).

To your first sentence, sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference between not feeling quite right about following a directive and just not wanting to follow the directive.  I struggle with being able to tell the difference between 'this is wrong to do' and 'this is not something i want to do.'