Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Perhaps from the perspective of the governing class. 

And also from many local members of the Church.  Their perspective matters, too.

24 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

However, from the perspective of the governed, it seems like it is to promote obedience to authority, to maybe make the questioner reflect, ever so slightly, on questioning authority. 

There is something to what you say.  The custom of standing when a judge enters the courtroom has, for some portion of it, an acknowledgement of authority, and of submission to that authority.  The same goes for standing for the jury.  And for military salutes.  And for basic expressions of deference/submission in the workplace (such as reporting to your boss's office when summoned).  And for following instructions from a police officer when he pulls you over.  And on and on and on.

Submission to authority is part and parcel of being part of any community.  The alternative is anarchy.

24 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think it is necessary. 

I doubt your bravado would hold up if your boss called you to his/her office.  Would you flip her the bird?  Ignore her?  Or would you, as a reasonable and rational person, submit to her authority and report to her office when summoned (in other words, would you submit to her authority, and demonstrate that submission through obedience to her instructions)?

So I think the question is not really about showing respect, but about showing disrespect.  Contempt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

43 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps standing when a prophet or apostle enters the room signifies our respect for He whom they represent.

This is much nicer way of putting it.   

[JLHPROF]

2 hours 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".

 

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

Couldn't disagree more.

In our courts today we rise when the presiding authority (judge) enters and are seated when directed.
Are Bishop's not judges in Israel?  Are Apostles not judges (and probably kings in Israel too)?

As for your statement about Christ, that is both true and false.  We kneel precisely because of his office.  We worship precisely because of his office.  He is Judge, Lord, King, Savior, and now God and Father to us.  It is also correct as you state to kneel out of gratitude and admiration for what he has done for us, but the office(s) he holds are equally worthy of respect.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My sister's father-in-law is a General Authority, a Seventy.  Last fall he came to our ward because he was in town and because my son was giving a talk prior to serving a mission.  Prior to the meeting he went up on the stand and spoke with the bishop.  He explained, in apologetic tones, that the protocol is for him, as a General Authority, to sit on the stand because he is presiding.  He also said that he would prefer to sit with his wife in the pews, as he very rarely gets that opportunity.

This has changed in recent years (unwritten).

We just had it emphasized last night in bishopric meeting that our stake will have general authorities at our sacrament meetings in the next several months, and we had a pretty elaborate protocol laid out for us (dos and don'ts; whoever's conducting announce the closing song and prayer prior to turning over the meeting to the GA so that he speaks last and no one speaks after him, etc. There were more!). Oddly, the most recent coordinating council had emphasized that we are to announce at all times who is presiding, even in real time as it changes throughout the meeting. The example given was a recent gathering of GAs and AAs in the Tabernacle, where many, including President Monson and apostles, came and went. Each time there were entrances and exits, the conductor announced the change in who was presiding, and this was held out as what we should do if the stake president or his counselors, or someone higher entered or left our meeting. Really convoluted and distracting!

Years ago (ca. 2001), I was ward mission leader in a ward in Gilbert, AZ. As I greeted people coming in to sacrament meeting, an unfamiliar middle age-to-elderly sister shook my hand and introduced herself as Sister Zwick. I asked her if she was related to Elder W. Craig Zwick, and she said, "He's my husband. He's right here behind me!" I shook his hand and welcomed him to our ward. They both sat in the middle of the middle row in the chapel. I sent a note to the bishop with a deacon, letting him know that Elder Zwick of the 1Q70 was in the middle of row seven. He looked shocked, went and shook his hand, and invited him up on the stand. Elder Zwick looked like he would rather have remained sitting with his wife in the congregation, but went up. The bishop acknowledged the presence of Elder Zwick in sacrament meeting from the pulpit. 

It appears that there has been a shift in our time to where GAs are expected to sit on the stand and be acknowledged as presiding. No more King Arthur going incognito, like in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court!"   It was clear in this experience that Elder Zwick intended on simply sitting in the congregation and remaining unacknowledged. 

[katherine the great]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Years ago (ca. 2001), I was ward mission leader in a ward in Gilbert, AZ. As I greeted people coming in to sacrament meeting, an unfamiliar middle age-to-elderly sister shook my hand and introduced herself as Sister Zwick. I asked her if she was related to Elder W. Craig Zwick, and she said, "He's my husband. He's right here behind me!"

Next time, maybe she should just introduce herself by her first name.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

This has changed in recent years (unwritten).

We just had it emphasized last night in bishopric meeting that our stake will have general authorities at our sacrament meetings in the next several months, and we had a pretty elaborate protocol laid out for us (dos and don'ts; whoever's conducting announce the closing song and prayer prior to turning over the meeting to the GA so that he speaks last and no one speaks after him, etc. There were more!). Oddly, the most recent coordinating council had emphasized that we are to announce at all times who is presiding, even in real time as it changes throughout the meeting. The example given was a recent gathering of GAs and AAs in the Tabernacle, where many, including President Monson and apostles, came and went. Each time there were entrances and exits, the conductor announced the change in who was presiding, and this was held out as what we should do if the stake president or his counselors, or someone higher entered or left our meeting. Really convoluted and distracting!

Years ago (ca. 2001), I was ward mission leader in a ward in Gilbert, AZ. As I greeted people coming in to sacrament meeting, an unfamiliar middle age-to-elderly sister shook my hand and introduced herself as Sister Zwick. I asked her if she was related to Elder W. Craig Zwick, and she said, "He's my husband. He's right here behind me!" I shook his hand and welcomed him to our ward. They both sat in the middle of the middle row in the chapel. I sent a note to the bishop with a deacon, letting him know that Elder Zwick of the 1Q70 was in the middle of row seven. He looked shocked, went and shook his hand, and invited him up on the stand. Elder Zwick looked like he would rather have remained sitting with his wife in the congregation, but went up. The bishop acknowledged the presence of Elder Zwick in sacrament meeting from the pulpit. 

It appears that there has been a shift in our time to where GAs are expected to sit on the stand and be acknowledged as presiding. No more King Arthur going incognito, like in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court!"   It was clear in this experience that Elder Zwick intended on simply sitting in the congregation and remaining unacknowledged. 

Thanks for sharing, that announcing who's presiding sounds very confusing and unnecessary.  What's the point?  Is it to try and emphasize some kind of priesthood authority for those "presiding".  I don't see the value in it. 

Sad to see the recent trend...  

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe they represent Christ or God in their lives more than each of us should?

As a person they represent Christ just as each of us does.  We have all been commanded to be a light to the world.  However, the apostles have been called and ordained to be special witnesses of Christ.  Until Christ returns we can signify our love and respect for Him by showing love and respect for the apostles He has called to personally represent Him.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And also from many local members of the Church.  Their perspective matters, too.

There is something to what you say.  The custom of standing when a judge enters the courtroom has, for some portion of it, an acknowledgement of authority, and of submission to that authority.  The same goes for standing for the jury.  And for military salutes.  And for basic expressions of deference/submission in the workplace (such as reporting to your boss's office when summoned).  And for following instructions from a police officer when he pulls you over.  And on and on and on.

Submission to authority is part and parcel of being part of any community.  The alternative is anarchy.

I doubt your bravado would hold up if your boss called you to his/her office.  Would you flip her the bird?  Ignore her?  Or would you, as a reasonable and rational person, submit to her authority and report to her office when summoned (in other words, would you submit to her authority, and demonstrate that submission through obedience to her instructions)?

So I think the question is not really about showing respect, but about showing disrespect.  Contempt.

Thanks,

-Smac

The alternative is anarchy if we don't follow your examples?  Isn't that a bit much?  Society should have rules and laws for sure, but, there must be respect for the individual, too.  It is a balancing act that I think has tipped too much into the authoritarian camp.  Why don't we respect everyone and not hold one above the other?  Also, why don't the apostles have emeritus status?  Maybe this standing nonsense would cease if some of the older ones retired?    

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Perhaps from the perspective of the governing class.  However, from the perspective of the governed, it seems like it is to promote obedience to authority, to maybe make the questioner reflect, ever so slightly, on questioning authority.  I don't think it is necessary.  If one wants respect, earn it with what is said and done.  I, an apostate, will listen to them if they have something good to say, but won't when what they say is questionable.  

The authority that we are submitting to is that of the Savior.  The apostles are called and chosen to be His special witnesses on earth at this time.  We are commanded to give heed to their words just as if they were spoken by Him.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I admit, I struggle with respecting Bednar.  He's a tough one.  But his pickle story was so cute. 

I doubt it's true, but read recently that Elder Bednar got up in the middle of the Sacrament meeting he was attending and stopped the musical number because it had a guitar. Have you heard of this? 

I just found this about Duncan's OP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPBsWbopjXU&feature=share

I like this talk by Elder Uchtdorf: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Tacenda

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

So it's because of "good manners" that we should stand for an Apostle?  

Well, I generally wouldn't consider it to be good manners if someone refused to stand. 

 

Quote

Would he do the same (stand) for anyone else entering the room after him to show his good manners?

The overwhelming majority of priesthood leaders I have worked with over the years do stand when someone else enters the room. In fact, they typically stand and then go to personally greet / welcome them. I always assumed that sort of behavior was commonplace. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

If by this you mean that some are apt to view reasonable and wholesome respect with an over-sensitive, chip-on-the-shoulder mentality, I suppose you're right. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

As a person they represent Christ just as each of us does.  We have all been commanded to be a light to the world.  However, the apostles have been called and ordained to be special witnesses of Christ.  Until Christ returns we can signify our love and respect for Him by showing love and respect for the apostles He has called to personally represent Him.

We should show love to all who represent Christ and show respect to those who have earned it, IMO.  I do understand your thoughts on it as well.  

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The overwhelming majority of priesthood leaders I have worked with over the years do stand when someone else enters the room.

Really?  That's not been my experience at all (that would be a lot of standing ).  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If by this you mean that some are apt to view reasonable and wholesome respect with an over-sensitive, chip-on-the-shoulder mentality, I suppose you're right. 

I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I guess I don't mean that. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I doubt it's true, but read recently that Elder Bednar got up in the middle of the Sacrament meeting he was attending and stopped the musical number because it had a guitar. Have you heard of this? 

I just found this about Duncan's OP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPBsWbopjXU&feature=share

 

I haven't heard of it.  Sorry. This actually may be something I respect of him, though, just cause I've wanted to stand up and stop about half the musical numbers in Church,,,ugh.  I just don't feel them like everyone else does, I think. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by stemelbow

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If by this you mean that some are apt to view reasonable and wholesome respect with an over-sensitive, chip-on-the-shoulder mentality, I suppose you're right. 

How many pictures to you have of the Q12/FP in your home? Is their group picture your wallpaper on at least one of your computers?

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing, that announcing who's presiding sounds very confusing and unnecessary.  What's the point?  Is it to try and emphasize some kind of priesthood authority for those "presiding".  I don't see the value in it. 

Sad to see the recent trend...  

Just because you don't recognize the presiding authority as significant doesn't mean the Lord doesn't.

Presiding authority is an important gospel principle.  It's why Peter and not James led the Church.  It's why John the Baptist and not another restored the Aaronic priesthood.  It's why Orson Pratt was nearly disciplined by the 12 for disagreeing on doctrine.  And it's why Oliver baptized Joseph first.  And it's why only one is appointed to receive revelations for the Church.
And so on...

In any meeting, senior priesthood holder presides.  Always has, always will, even in the eternities.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The alternative is anarchy if we don't follow your examples? 

Not quite that pat.  We all submit to authority.  All the time.  Constantly.  Endlessly.  You make it sound like some horrible, unconscionable thing, but only as pertaining to the LDS Church.  Otherwise, I suspect you seem fine with submitting to authority.

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Isn't that a bit much? 

Well, you tell me.  Are you employed?  If so, what would you do if your boss called you to his office?  Would you flip him the bird?  Ignore him?  Or would you, as a reasonable and rational person, submit to his authority over you and report to his office when summoned (in other words, would you submit to his authority, and demonstrate that submission through obedience to her instructions)?

Every community has rules and laws.  Every community has some sort of hierarchy of authority.  Every community functions by elements of it submitting to that heirarchy.  And yet you seem to take exception to the notion that the LDS Church, as a community, does what every other community does.  Isn't that a bit much?

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Society should have rules and laws for sure, but, there must be respect for the individual, too. 

Of course.  But that leads to a rather obvious question: What is disrespectful about asking an individual to submit to a recognized authority?

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It is a balancing act that I think has tipped too much into the authoritarian camp. 

Well, okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.

The LDS Church is an entirely voluntary community.  It has only as much authority as the individual is willing to give it.  It specifically and expressly disclaims any secular authority.  See D&C 134:10 ("We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.").

And yet despite all this, observance of a longstanding and utterly innocuous custom (standing when a GA enters the room) has rendered the LDS Church an "authoritarian camp?"

Yes, reasonable minds will have to disagree about that.

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why don't we respect everyone and not hold one above the other? 

What is disrespectful about asking an individual to submit to a recognized authority?

A community only functions if there are recognized authorities within it.  Otherwise, we have anarchy.  We have no mechanism to enforce the laws, or seek a redress of grievances.  

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Also, why don't the apostles have emeritus status? 

Not sure.

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Maybe this standing nonsense would cease if some of the older ones retired?    

I don't think a token gesture of respect is "nonsense."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Scott....no one here will be surprised at where you fall on the hero worship scale regarding the Apostles.  You have every right to be there too and I'm not going to argue that with you.

However, I am also entitled to my feelings and opinions.  I believe every person has to earn real, genuine, heart felt respect and that includes the Apostles.

Thank you for acknowledging my "right," but the admiration and respect I feel  for Church leaders is not properly characterized as "hero worship," your effort at well-poisoning and subtle implication of irrationality on my part notwithstanding. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How many pictures to you have of the Q12/FP in your home? Is their group picture your wallpaper on at least one of your computers?

None and no. 

Such a thing might be useful for reference in my work for name spellings and seniority and such, but if need be, I rely on the Internet for that. 

Sorry to dash your hopes to stereotype. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you for acknowledging my "right," but the admiration and respect I feel  for Church leaders is not properly characterized as "hero worship," your effort at well-poisoning and suble implication of irrationality on my part notwithstanding. 

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion as am I.  No "well-poisoning" going on here (one of your more favorite accusations that I do find humorous), just stating what I believe.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just because you don't recognize the presiding authority as significant doesn't mean the Lord doesn't.

Presiding authority is an important gospel principle.  It's why Peter and not James led the Church.  It's why John the Baptist and not another restored the Aaronic priesthood.  It's why Orson Pratt was nearly disciplined by the 12 for disagreeing on doctrine.  And it's why Oliver baptized Joseph first.  And it's why only one is appointed to receive revelations for the Church.
And so on...

In any meeting, senior priesthood holder presides.  Always has, always will, even in the eternities.

Interesting examples.  I really don't see it as important as how you emphasize as I see it more about keeping things orderly, than about an eternal principle.  It just makes pragmatic sense to have one person that is ultimately responsible for what happens (buck stops here). 

For the specific example that Rongo shared, I really don't see the point.  Why does it need to be announced who is there and who is technically in charge ad nauseam?  Seems like a waste of time to me and doesn't provide any real value to the audience.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not quite that pat.  We all submit to authority.  All the time.  Constantly.  Endlessly.  You make it sound like some horrible, unconscionable thing, but only as pertaining to the LDS Church.  Otherwise, I suspect you seem fine with submitting to authority.

Well, you tell me.  Are you employed?  If so, what would you do if your boss called you to his office?  Would you flip him the bird?  Ignore him?  Or would you, as a reasonable and rational person, submit to his authority over you and report to his office when summoned (in other words, would you submit to his authority, and demonstrate that submission through obedience to her instructions)?

Every community has rules and laws.  Every community has some sort of hierarchy of authority.  Every community functions by elements of it submitting to that heirarchy.  And yet you seem to take exception to the notion that the LDS Church, as a community, does what every other community does.  Isn't that a bit much?

Of course.  But that leads to a rather obvious question: What is disrespectful about asking an individual to submit to a recognized authority?

Well, okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.

The LDS Church is an entirely voluntary community.  It has only as much authority as the individual is willing to give it.  It specifically and expressly disclaims any secular authority.  See D&C 134:10 ("We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.").

And yet despite all this, observance of a longstanding and utterly innocuous custom (standing when a GA enters the room) has rendered the LDS Church an "authoritarian camp?"

Yes, reasonable minds will have to disagree about that.

What is disrespectful about asking an individual to submit to a recognized authority?

A community only functions if there are recognized authorities within it.  Otherwise, we have anarchy.  We have no mechanism to enforce the laws, or seek a redress of grievances.  

Not sure.

I don't think a token gesture of respect is "nonsense."

Thanks,

-Smac

Authority should be limited and questioned at all times. Church authority should be questioned as well.  As for the workplace, authoritarian bosses seem to lose employees and don't garner the respect I think is necessary to run a good business.  Sure, there must be order but good employees that are free to contribute make for a better work environment.  Too much saluting seems to deflate this.  Leave it for the military where it is needed.  I tried to have my staff salute me and stand at attention when I walked in the room, as a mere show of respect.  I was shocked when they rebelled.  They even marked up the life-sized picture of myself I have in the reception area, put there to remind all of my humble authority.  Go figure.  I guess anarchy is at the doors!

Edited September 15, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

None and no. 

Such a thing might be useful for reference in my work for name spellings and seniority and such, but if need be, I rely on the Internet for that. 

Sorry to dash your hopes to stereotype. 

I'm surprised.  I would think you would be the first to grab the newest addition of the G.A. chart that comes out at conference time.