Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Duncan]

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?

[cdowis]

It is a matter of respect.  Everyone on the stand waits until he stands,  and then the congregation follows.  

You see that in General Conference.

Edited September 15, 2017 by cdowis

[Marginal Gains]

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 September 15, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Calm]

It could be for security reasons these days unfortunately.

[Rain]

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 September 15, 2017 by Rain

[cdowis]

This does not happen in my stake conference.  Otherwise we would start ten minutes late.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

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

[katherine the great]

I have mixed feelings about it. Part of me wants to roll my eyes and part of me thinks its appropriate because I love tradition.

[Amulek]

Maybe it's because I'm from the South, but I think standing up is just common courtesy. YMMV.

 

[smac97]

Standing for a General Authority is, at most, a token.  A very simple and innocuous gesture.  A de minimis demonstration that those standing recognize and respect those in authority.

As an attorney, we have a very strong (mandatory?) custom for everyone in the courtroom to rise when the judge enters and takes the bench, to rise when addressing the court (unless excused to remain sitting by the judge), and to rise when the judge exits.  

As this attorney explains: "It is showing respect to the system, not to the particular judge. Being in a society does not excuse you from showing respect to the very system that allows you to live in a (mainly) peaceful and organized society."

And this one (same link):

Quote

This is tradition and courtroom decorum.

I’ve been in front of maybe a dozen judges and only a few of them insist on it.

I don’t recall ever seeing it in any of our rules of civil procedure or statutes, but I imagine its possible that in some States it is required.

And this one (same link):

Quote

Well it is not the judge rather the position, the seat that commands respect. Even in ancient times the authority that did justice between people was given respect. It is also a symbolic gesture that we trust the system to provide us justice.

There is a comparable custom of rising when the jury enters and exits the courtroom.  The gesture, I think, is intended to recognize that the jury members are in a position of authority, and that this position and the judicial process relating to it merit respect and recognition.

In other contexts, standing is not necessary.  Once the jury is released, standing when they enter a room is not necessary.  When a judge enters the room at a Continuing Legal Education seminar, standing up is not necessary.  These venues are different than the courtroom.  The propriety of this token demonstration is therefore specific not only to the position of the individual (a judge or jury), but the venue (in a formal, courtroom setting).

I think a corollary "token" demonstration is the refusal to observe this tradition.  It demonstrates a lack of respect, a lack of recognition of the authority of the person in question (a judge or, in this context, a General Authority).

I have attended several dozen disciplinary counsels over the past many years.  In each and every one, everyone in the room rises when the person under discipline enters.  While obviously not a demonstration of recognition of authority, I think this practice nevertheless carries a strong connotation, a demonstration that those involved in the disciplinary process respect and care about the person under discipline.

For me, I appreciate the observance of such token gestures.  There is value in maintaining formalities in some contexts.  I have often worked on litigation involving a pro se litigant (someone who is representing himself, without an attorney) who is very mouthy and rude and whatnot outside of the courtroom (during settlement negotiations, etc.).  But then comes the day when we go to court for a hearing or some such.  There are armed sheriff's deputies at the door and a bailiff in the courtroom.  There is also a court clerk in the courtroom and cameras and microphones which record the proceedings.  There is a gallery for observers, and then a "bar" (a low partition between the gallery and the rest of the courtroom) where the litigants and their attorneys sit.  There is a jury box.  There is a lectern.  There is a witness seat.  And then there is "the bench," the raised platform where the judge sits.  He or she wears a black robe.  There is a gavel (though seldom used in my experience).  Behind the judge are the American and State of Utah flags, and the Great Seal of Utah on the wall.  There are formalities in practice (standing when the judge enters, etc.), in procedure (the judge runs the show, the moving party speaks first and last, etc.), in speech (the judge is referred to as "Your Honor"), and so on.  These formalities, in this venue, are intended to emphasize and reinforce the importance of the rule of law, and the need for deference and respect to those who have authority to speak and render binding decisions.  So the pro se guy who was a bit cocky and snotty in his communications usually quiets down and behaves reasonably and respectably.  And that's a good thing.

Similarly, I think there is some value in token gestures of respect to General Authorities.  We are not asked to kiss their feet.  Or bow down to them.  A shower them with adulation and praise.  Just stand up when they enter the room.  As a token of respect for the position of authority they temporarily hold.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 15, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

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 September 15, 2017 by smac97

[omni]

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?

[ALarson]

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 September 15, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

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 September 15, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

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.  

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

[hope_for_things]

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.  

[ALarson]

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).

[hope_for_things]

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.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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 September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

[stemelbow]

An interesting example of a rule, helping to set up and create boundaries. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

One person's worship is another person's "respecting authority", I guess.