Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting


Duncan

Recommended Posts

There is a video on my FB that has the recent Elder Bednar devotional and the narrator says that you can't stand up after a meeting is over until the Apostle does so first. In this video Sis. Bednar goes to stand up first but catches herself until he stands up. I can't say I have been around the Apostles any, the last time was then Elder Eyring in 2005. I don't recall any directive to sit until he stood up though. is this an actual thing? to sit until the Apostle stands up?

Link to comment

From memory it was something the Community Of Christ starting doing many years ago and it just seeped over into the LDS Church.

There’s no doctrinal basis for it, as I understand, nor is it a requirement. That said, I’ve witnessed SP’a scurrying around and having announcements put out about standing up when a General Authority enters the chapel. Of course it’s stage managed so that the General Authority is the last person into the chapel long after everyone is already seated. It feels a little too rock star for my liking.

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Calm said:

It could be for security reasons these days unfortunately.

Yes, that is the case in general conference or regional conferences filmed from there. I don't remember what was, if anything, was said to the congregation, but as a choir member at regional conference we were not to leave before President Hinckley and the rest of the general authorities.  

I suspect the video does not show what the narrator says it shows, but that there is a different reason for her actions than he narrates.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I always thought standing up for those guys was a little much. I'm sure the church would do fine without the practice.

We do not stand up "for those guys."  The gesture pertains to the position.

My sister's father-in-law is a General Authority, a Seventy.  At some point in the next few years he will be released.  Once he is released, the observance of the custom under discussion (standing when he enters the room) will cease.  Not because he has changed, but because he no longer holds the position of authority, respect for and recognition of which is demonstrated through the token gesture of standing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

It could be for security reasons these days unfortunately.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the connection.  No one stands before the apostle / prophets due to security reasons?

I think it's more likely due to respect for the position.  While I personally think it's a bit over the top, I doubt LDS are the only ones who do this.

Can anybody confirm if this same practice occurs in other churches?

What about in government?  Is it traditional to wait for the POTUS to stand (if he isn't already speaking) before other do so?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Duncan said:

There is a video on my FB that has the recent Elder Bednar devotional and the narrator says that you can't stand up after a meeting is over until the Apostle does so first. In this video Sis. Bednar goes to stand up first but catches herself until he stands up. I can't say I have been around the Apostles any, the last time was then Elder Eyring in 2005. I don't recall any directive to sit until he stood up though. is this an actual thing? to sit until the Apostle stands up?

I haven't seen the video.  Is this the same one (or story) that went around about Bednar getting upset with the choir for standing first?  I seem to remember something about that...(or maybe it was that when he stood, they didn't?).

I think the hero worship can get out of hand, but I have no problem if it's out of respect.  However, I feel that one's calling does not make them greater than another member and that respect does need to be earned.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment

When I was little, my parents taught me that after sacrament meeting we should wait until the bishop stands before we stand. I'm fairly sure that was common practice back then. I guess it has gone away.

But there is not a thing wrong with observing that custom for one who holds high office in the Church, and I believe there is much to be gained from it as a show of respect and courtesy. In fact, I perceive a certain attitude of arrogance if not a mild expression of rebellion in objecting to it.

I think it's still customary, by the way, for Aaronic Prieshood holders to wait until the presiding officer has been served the sacrament before they pass it to anyone else in the meeting.

Link to comment

When the "respect" of standing for an authority is mandated, it really only shows compliance and obedience. If people felt that kind of respect they would do it without being told. They wouldn't be chastised by the authority if they didn't heed the custom.

I remember being at a meeting of bishops and SP's where apostles presided. We  were required to be in our seats early. Fine. Then the apostle would enter and we would all stand. For some reason the apostle needed the adoration of making an entrance. It bothered me at the time even though I was extremely TBM. This happened with 3 different apostles on 3 different occasions so it must be a systemic thing and not merely the personal preference of an individual apostle.

Should the bishop be the last to enter Sacrament meeting and should we stand when he enters? It would be silly and overly worshipful of a position. I see no difference based on the leadership calling, whether it be bishop, SP, 70, apostle or prophet. When Jesus enters, I'll kneel because it's Him. Not because I'm supposed to show proper respect to a "position".

 

ETA- IIRC a priesthood leader is a servant of the people, not the king, right? We should get away from every practice that treats leaders as superior

 

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Duncan said:

There is a video on my FB that has the recent Elder Bednar devotional and the narrator says that you can't stand up after a meeting is over until the Apostle does so first. In this video Sis. Bednar goes to stand up first but catches herself until he stands up. I can't say I have been around the Apostles any, the last time was then Elder Eyring in 2005. I don't recall any directive to sit until he stood up though. is this an actual thing? to sit until the Apostle stands up?

Sounds like more evidence of Bednar's relationship with his wife, which I lost a lot of respect for after watching that devotional video a couple years back.  I'm not a fan of Bednar at all, and feel sorry for his wife, and hope he never makes the presidency.  

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like more evidence of Bednar's relationship with his wife, which I lost a lot of respect for after watching that devotional video a couple years back.  I'm not a fan of Bednar at all, and feel sorry for his wife, and hope he never makes the presidency.  

 

 

I don't disagree, but I see Bednar retrenching in the authority and control inherent in the system. He's just doing what's been done in the past but sometimes seems tone deaf to the cultural changes that have occurred over the past 50 years.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When the "respect" of standing for an authority is mandated, it really only shows compliance and obedience. If people felt that kind of respect they would do it without being told. They wouldn't be chastised by the authority if they didn't heed the custom.

I remember being at a meeting of bishops and SP's where apostles presided. We  were required to be in our seats early. Fine. Then the apostle would enter and we would all stand. For some reason the apostle needed the adoration of making an entrance. It bothered me at the time even though I was extremely TBM. This happened with 3 different apostles on 3 different occasions so it must be a systemic thing and not merely the personal preference of an individual apostle.

Should the bishop be the last to enter Sacrament meeting and should we stand when he enters? It would be silly and overly worshipful of a position. I see no difference based on the leadership calling, whether it be bishop, SP, 70, apostle or prophet. When Jesus enters, I'll kneel because it's Him. Not because I'm supposed to show proper respect to a "position".

When you give someone a label like prophet, seer, and revelator, or prophet, priest and king, you are essentially putting them up on this hero worship pedestal from the get go.  Its a bad tradition, and I hope it changes.  I would prefer calling them president or apostle, rather than prophet, and I hope our recent trend towards idolizing these people, they are just regular people like you and me, I hope that goes away soon.  Its really unhealthy for our Mormon culture.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I perceive a certain attitude of arrogance.....

I think that arrogance can go both ways.  From some of the stories I've heard (I know....mostly anecdotal...), some of their behavior also could be interpreted that way as well.

Once again, I firmly believe that a calling does not make the man (or woman) more deserving of respect.  If one is standing out of respect for the calling (the same as respect shown for the office of the President of the U.S. or within military ranks, etc.), that's one thing.  But every person needs to earn respect (including Apostles, IMO).

Link to comment
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't disagree, but I see Bednar retrenching in the authority and control inherent in the system. He's just doing what's been done in the past but sometimes seems tone deaf to the cultural changes that have occurred over the past 50 years.

Maybe its just me, but there is something about Bednar that really scares me.  Just a few of his comments in the past few years, makes me think he has a very overactive ego.  The comment about his words being scripture, these condescending comments towards his wife, his changing the question about homosexuals, all these evidences point towards something dangerous.  I hope I'm not over analyzing a few small moments, but I think the signs are there.  I worry about Bednar getting more power in the church, he seems like kind of personality that is at risk to really exercise unrighteous dominion.  

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We do not stand up "for those guys."  The gesture pertains to the position.

My sister's father-in-law is a General Authority, a Seventy.  At some point in the next few years he will be released.  Once he is released, the observance of the custom under discussion (standing when he enters the room) will cease.  Not because he has changed, but because he no longer holds the position of authority, respect for and recognition of which is demonstrated through the token gesture of standing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm familiar with the argument regarding office v. man.  Nevertheless, it seems too militaristic for me.  It also contributes to authority worship which I believe should be reduced whenever possible.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think that arrogance can go both ways.  From some of the stories I've heard (I know....mostly anecdotal...), some of their behavior also could be interpreted that way as well.

Once again, I firmly believe that a calling does not make the man (or woman) more deserving of respect.  If one is standing out of respect for the calling (the same as respect shown for the office of the President of the U.S. or within military ranks, etc.), that's one thing.  But every person needs to earn respect (including Apostles, IMO).

I've never seen an apostle demand that everyone in the room stand when he enters, so I don't know where you're getting this idea about arrogance going both ways.

And yes, the sanctity of the apostolic office, indicative of the great trust the Lord has reposed in the man so called, makes him deserving of respect.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I'm familiar with the argument regarding office v. man.  Nevertheless, it seems too militaristic for me.  It also contributes to authority worship which I believe should be reduced whenever possible.

There is a wide territory between respecting authority and worshiping it. Frankly, I've never seen an instance of the latter in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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