Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Scott Lloyd]

51 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...  

The one who presides over a meeting is in charge of what transpires (and is permitted to transpire) therein. It is thus useful to ensure that those in attendance know who it is. 

And no, I don't see how announcing it could be seen as confusing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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. 

Yes, I already acknowledged you are stereotyping. Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The one who presides over a meeting is in charge of what transpires (and is permitted to transpire) therein. It is thus useful to ensure that those in attendance know who it is. 

And no, I don't see how announcing it could be seen as confusing. 

Confusing because the audience probably doesn't care who enters and the leaves the room in the middle of the meeting.  I can't think of any other venues where this kind of hyper announcing of who's in charge would ever occur.  I can't even imagine it in my Mormon experience, but assuming Rongo's story is correct, its a confusing waste of time at the least, and an unhealthy emphasis on authority at the most.  

Edited September 15, 2017 by hope_for_things

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

isAuthority should be limited and questioned at all times.

Way too overbroad to be meaningful or useful.  Yes in some circumstances, no in others.

Authority is always "limited" in some way, so that descriptor doesn't help.

As for "questioned at all times," good luck with that.  If a litigant who shows up in a court of competent jurisdiction and "questions" the Court's "authority" that is plainly evident (such as a state court's authority to adjudicate  real property claim), he's in for disappointment.

Such hippy-dippy counterculture memes have been flowing freely for a long time (thanks, Sixties!), but in reality they don't have any coherent meaning or usefulness.  

What limiting principles are there to the above proposition?  Any?

Quote

Church authority should be questioned as well. 

But surely not "questioned at all times."  Not questioned endlessly.  The parameters of the Church's authority are pretty clear-cut and self-limiting.  So there's no need to re-invent the wheel here.

I see folks like you all the time in litigation matters.  They usually appear pro se, either because they do not want to pay an attorney, or else they can't find one who will pursue their legal theory.  These folks think that because they have a grievance and access to Google, that their strongly worded say-so is sufficient to re-examine or re-create (or, put another way, "question") well-established legal and procedural principles.  That's not the way it works.  The U.S. legal system is very complex, largely because it seeks to take all factors into account (constitutional principles, dual sovereignty issues, jurisdictional considerations, state and federal statutes, procedural factors, basic notions of fair play and substantial justice, and so on).

In matters of church governance, similar principles apply.  For example, the CHI exists not because the Brethren are enamored of bureaucracy and red tape and procedural niceties, but because it represents much of the aggregate experience, wisdom, and spiritual guidance of past and present leaders of the Church.

So trite phrases like "question authority!" don't mean anything, not really.  Without limiting principles, you are just calling for anarchy.  That just does not work.

Quote

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. 

You're just dodging now.  There is nothing unduly "authoritarian" about a boss calling an employee to his office.  But the employee does it anyway, because submission to authority is part and parcel of the employment "community."  

Every community requires submission to authority.  Every.  Single.  One.

Quote

Sure, there must be order but good employees that are free to contribute make for a better work environment. 

I said nothing about "free{dom} to contribute."

Again, 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)?

Quote

Too much saluting seems to deflate this.  Leave it for the military where it is needed. 

I agree it's needed (and left to the military).  So you concede that submission to authority is, depending on the context, "needed," right?  There are certainly constraints on that principle, but the principle itself exists.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 15, 2017 by smac97

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I already acknowledged you are stereotyping. Do you want a medal for it or something?

It's not stereotyping at all.  I don't think all mormons are like you.  I think most are not, in my opinion.  I just see you as someone who is on the side of worshiping authority.  You seem to be the one who is always encouraging one and all to follow the brethren, follow the brethren, because they supposedly know the way .....

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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):

And this one (same link):

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

I think the practice also serves another function. It alerts younger members of the crowd that it is time to pay attention and be quiet - to prepare themselves to listen. I dislike it when a speaker comes to the podium and has to wait for the crowd to be quiet or worse to have to quiet them from speaking. Kids that are fidgeting in their seats, will be quiet and shift gears when they stand. Standing serves to tell the speaker/s we respect you, and are ready to listen. I know it helps me in this regard, and I am now 54 - it helps my mind shift gears - when I sit from standing, it feels like, Ok, now I am ready to listen. It draws the room to attention. If courtrooms did not have this practice,  it could become a place of mayhem with multiple people speaking at once. I believe the air of formality serves an important function beyond just showing respect.

As a side note, I see a total lack of decorum in many modern news stories. Inevitably, when multiple parties appear, they begin speaking at the same time and often raising their voices. I abhor a shouting contest, and I lose respect for such persons - that will often be the end of my viewing. Showing respect when another is speaking - especially one chosen to speak for the group - is important.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Honestly, I don't know why it needs to be announced who is presiding other than for record keeping purposes.
It DOES matter who presides at a meeting so making a record of that should happen.  Should any difficulty or conflict occur in that meeting the presiding authority does matter.
Very rare that such a thing happens in sacrament meetings, but it does.

Does that mean the poor guy can't preside from the audience and has to go sit up front?  Don't know.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The one who presides over a meeting is in charge of what transpires (and is permitted to transpire) therein. It is thus useful to ensure that those in attendance know who it is. 

And no, I don't see how announcing it could be seen as confusing. 

Announcing the presiding authority has always been done in my ward.  I don't understand why anyone would think it not appropriate.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Confusing because the audience probably doesn't care who enters and the leaves the room in the middle of the meeting.  I can't think of any other venues where this kind of hyper announcing of who's in charge would ever occur.  I can't even imagine it in my Mormon experience, but assuming Rongo's story is correct, its a confusing waste of time at the least, and an unhealthy emphasis on authority at the most.  

The audience should care.  But in today's world some probably don't.
(Now I have more and more examples of the importance of presiding authority coming through my mind.  But I won't bore you.  Just sayin...it's all throughout scripture and Church history and prophecy).

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Way too overbroad to be meaningful or useful.  Yes in some circumstances, no in others.

Authority is always "limited" in some way, so that descriptor doesn't help.

As for "questioned at all times," good luck with that.  If a litigant who shows up in a court of competent jurisdiction and "questions" the Court's "authority" that is plainly evident (such as a state court's authority to adjudicate  real property claim), he's in for disappointment.

Such hippie-dippy counterculture memes have been flowing freely for a long time (thanks, Sixties!), but in reality they don't have any coherent meaning or usefulness.  

What limiting principles are there to the above proposition?  Any?

But surely not "questioned at all times."  Not questioned endlessly.  The parameters of the Church's authority are pretty clear-cut and self-limiting.  So there's no need to re-invent the wheel here.

I see folks like you all the time in litigation matters.  They usually appear pro se, either because they do not want to pay an attorney, or else they can't find one who will pursue their legal theory.  These folks think that because they have a grievance and access to Google, that their strongly worded say-so is sufficient to re-examine or re-create well-established legal and procedural principles.  That's not the way it works.  The U.S. legal system is very complex, largely because it seeks to take all factors into account (constitutional principles, dual sovereignty issues, jurisdictional considerations, state and federal statutes, procedural factors, basic notions of fair play and substantial justice, and so on).

In matters of church governance, similar principles apply.  For example, the CHI exists not because the Brethren are enamored of bureaucracy and red tape and procedural niceties, but because it represents much of the aggregate experience, wisdom, and spiritual guidance of past and present leaders of the Church.

So trite phrases like "question authority!" don't mean anything, not really.  Without limiting principles, you are just calling for anarchy.  That just does not work.

You're just dodging now.  There is nothing unduly "authoritarian" about a boss calling an employee to his office.  But the employee does it anyway, because submission to authority is part and parcel of the employment "community."  

Every community requires submission to authority.  Every.  Single.  One.

I said nothing about "free{dom} to contribute."

Again, 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)?

I agree it's needed (and left to the military).  So you concede that submission to authority is "needed," right?  There are certainly constraints on that principle, but the principle itself exists.

Thanks,

-Smac

Black and white thinking should be discouraged.  Most things are on a continuum and as I said, it is a balancing act.  Where I disagree with you is the want to overly prop up authority and push it up the mountain.  On the continuum, you are more in the camp of authority worship.  We don't need kings on the one end of the spectrum and we can't have a lawless society on the other.  Lawlessness should never be allowed.  However, your support of this standing nonsense is closer to wanting a king to rule over us, of hereditary rule, of blindly submitting to those called because they happen to be born into a certain family or have rubbed shoulders with authority.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The audience should care.  But in today's world some probably don't.
(Now I have more and more examples of the importance of presiding authority coming through my mind.  But I won't bore you.  Just sayin...it's all throughout scripture and Church history and prophecy).

I'm sure there are historical examples, many have been narrated for theological emphasis about the importance of authority, its just not important to me, but I respect your position in thinking it is.  No worries.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Announcing the presiding authority has always been done in my ward.  I don't understand why anyone would think it not appropriate.

Pick me!!  :-)  Its not important to me because I don't find the emphasis on a person having authority for a meeting to be an important distinction.  I can't imagine a scenario where ambiguity over who is ultimately the authority in charge in a sacrament meeting setting really has any practical value.  Is there ever going to be an argument or battle over who's conducting?  Just trying to imagine a scenario where this is relevant in the real world I can't think of anything at all.  

On the down side, the focus on authority and on a person holding authority, this isn't an important teaching in the gospel as I perceive it.  What is inspirational to me about the gospel message are the teachings of grace and love and forgiveness.  None of those come from authority, unless you're talking about God's authority and in that case that authority is pretty hard to quantify or describe.  I believe those things are gifts from God, not to be handed out from authority figures, but are freely given to all, and can be exercised and taken accordingly as needed by each individual without respect to titles or traditions.  This is the kind of universalistic Mormonism that I gravitate towards.  

[smac97]

On 9/15/2017 at 12:45 PM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Black and white thinking should be discouraged. 

Agreed.  But that is precisely what you are doing.  "Question authority all the time" is black and white thinking.  Or else it's not thinking at all.  There is no reasoning for it.  No rationale.  No explanation.  No limiting principles.  Just . . . anarchy.

Quote

Most things are on a continuum and as I said, it is a balancing act.  Where I disagree with you is the want to overly prop up authority and push it up the mountain. 

I want to prop up authority that is reasonably created and exercised.  I don't think that is "overly" in any coherent sense.

Again, what limiting principles apply to your "Authority should be limited and questioned at all times" assertion?  What is the reasoning for it?  

Quote

On the continuum, you are more in the camp of authority worship. 

And you are in the camp of applying denigrating labels to people you don't like.

I have expressly disclaimed the notion of "worship."  I do so again here.  

I value society and community.  

I value the order and structure that arises from the reasonable creation and exercise of authority.  

I think the LDS Church has a scriptural mandate that necessarily and significantly limits its authority.  

I think the LDS Church generally constrains itself to appropriate boundaries (there are missteps and abuses here and there, but nothing systemic or profoundly problematic).

I also think phrases like "question authority" are banal and insipid without at least an attempt to present an explanation or limiting principles.

Quote

We don't need kings on the one end of the spectrum and we can't have a lawless society on the other. 

So standing up for a General Authority for a few seconds once in a blue moon is equivalent to treating them like "kings."  That is silly.

Meanwhile, there is also a custom in the Church for people involved in a disciplinary council to stand up when the person under discipline enters the room.  That's not an exercise in kingmaking, either.  It's a modest token of respect.

Quote

Lawlessness should never be allowed. 

So question authority, but then submit to it anyway?  Is that what you are saying?

Now I am really confused.

Quote

However, your support of this standing nonsense

It's not "nonsense."  It is an utterly benign and innocuous and modest gesture of respect.

Quote

is closer to wanting a king to rule over us,

Baloney.

Quote

of hereditary rule,

Double baloney.

Quote

of blindly submitting to those called because they happen to be born into a certain family or have rubbed shoulders with authority.

Triple baloney.  You're just throwing out insults now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 17, 2017 by smac97

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Pick me!!  :-)  Its not important to me because I don't find the emphasis on a person having authority for a meeting to be an important distinction.  I can't imagine a scenario where ambiguity over who is ultimately the authority in charge in a sacrament meeting setting really has any practical value.  Is there ever going to be an argument or battle over who's conducting?  Just trying to imagine a scenario where this is relevant in the real world I can't think of anything at all.  

On the down side, the focus on authority and on a person holding authority, this isn't an important teaching in the gospel as I perceive it.  What is inspirational to me about the gospel message are the teachings of grace and love and forgiveness.  None of those come from authority, unless you're talking about God's authority and in that case that authority is pretty hard to quantify or describe.  I believe those things are gifts from God, not to be handed out from authority figures, but are freely given to all, and can be exercised and taken accordingly as needed by each individual without respect to titles or traditions.  This is the kind of universalistic Mormonism that I gravitate towards.  

The priesthood that the presiding authority holds is God's authority.  As we acknowledge the presiding authority in a meeting we acknowledge that that meeting is being held under His authority. 

What that authority is seems pretty well laid out in the scriptures as well as the rites and ordinances of the restored gospel.  As we acknowledge those whom God has chosen to lead and guide His church today we acknowledge that we are willing to submit to His authority and be led and guided by those whom He has chosen.  This is what Christ taught when He was on the earth, "Come follow me." 

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Now I am really confused.

You don't need to support every practice of the church, all the time, to still remain "faithful."  I'm guessing this is your motivation as society would obviously not succumb to anarchy if standing for authority were all of a sudden discontinued.  Questioning authority does not mean anarchy either.  Laws need to be followed but that doesn't mean that we should prop up someone just because they were given a title.  Notice that it is the authoritarian that suggests that we stand or do you think it is spontaneous?

[Calm]

23 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?

Is the narrator an official one or is it someone superimposing their comments over what was going on?  Making the statement and then pointing to Sister Bednar's behavior as proof?

Edited September 16, 2017 by Calm

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Is the narrator an official one or is it someone superimposing their comments over what was going on?  Making the statement and then pointing to Sister Bender's behavior as proof?

it sounds like someone is narrating over it or superimposing, I think Tacenda has the link

[Calm]

5 hours ago, omni said:

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

 

Generally the person who stands first gets to leave first or at least put themselves in the location they want to be in when they are shaking hands, etc.  I am not saying this happens all the time, but I don't think one should assume that it is made a point of in every case to ensure the audience is respectful.  I have been in meetings where it is obvious it is intended to allow the leaders a quick getaway to their next meeting.

Also if someone doesn't wait, but starts moving forcefully towards the GA while others are holding back, this could alert the security if there are any to keep an eye on the individual, to move in just in case there was malicious intent in the desire to be the first to get to them.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I remember being at a meeting of bishops and SP's where apostles presided. We  were required to be in our seats early....For some reason the apostle needed the adoration of making an entrance.

Or their day could have been jam-packed with meetings and the intent was to save time and stress by having them come in only when the meeting was ready to proceed.

(It is possible the standing thing is separate from the 'be in your seats early' thing.)

PS: I tend to roll my eyes at the standing thing, but I also get how such things can create a sense of community in those who participate in it, so I am not 'anti-standing' for that particular reason.  I sometimes wish we knelt to pay together at church.  While bowing one's head is similar, that movement feels like it is drawing a person into themselves, while kneeling as a congregation draws one into the community, imo.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Honestly, I don't know why it needs to be announced who is presiding other than for record keeping purposes.

So if someone has an issue with what went on in the meeting, they know who to go talk to about it?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It's not stereotyping at all.  I don't think all mormons are like you.  I think most are not, in my opinion.  I just see you as someone who is on the side of worshiping authority.  You seem to be the one who is always encouraging one and all to follow the brethren, follow the brethren, because they supposedly know the way .....

BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:  • Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66537-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You don't need to support every practice of the church, all the time, to still remain "faithful." 

No need to inject further irrelevant digs against the Church (or against me personally).

31 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I'm guessing this is your motivation as society would obviously not succumb to anarchy if standing for authority were all of a sudden discontinued. 

Guess away.  But your persistent dodging of salient questions is becoming apparent.

31 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Questioning authority does not mean anarchy either. 

Again, what are the governing/limiting principles of your position?  Put aside the "question authority" schtick and present something that is substantive and meaningful enough for consideration.

31 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Laws need to be followed but that doesn't mean that we should prop up someone just because they were given a title. 

Again, no governing or limiting principles.  Just random, unsubstantiated assertions.

31 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Notice that it is the authoritarian that suggests that we stand or do you think it is spontaneous?

Oh, brother.  

"Authoritarian" = "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom"

In this context, you are using this word to (mis)characterize the LDS Church, which has specific and clear self-limiting principles on its authority.  

And the point under discussion is - as you put it - a "suggestion" that members stand as a token of respect for General Authorities.

I will leave it to you to ponder on the logical incoherence of an "authoritarian ... suggest{ion}."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 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 think nowadays customs are so inconsistent, that many people aren't sure what they should or shouldn't do and therefore out of politeness and not wanting to be disruptive might refrain from standing up until they saw it was done by the majority there...which means in many cases it wouldn't happen.

I think it would be nice if in large meetings where it is felt needed to be announced, it was phrased "if you would like to stand out of a sign of respect, feel free".  Smaller meetings where one can't get lost in the crowd if one doesn't want to participate for some reason (I often won't stand up because of pain) not standing comes across as a sign of rebellion unfortunately, so I don't see how it can get away from being an act of compliance for at least some.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The priesthood that the presiding authority holds is God's authority.  As we acknowledge the presiding authority in a meeting we acknowledge that that meeting is being held under His authority. 

What that authority is seems pretty well laid out in the scriptures as well as the rites and ordinances of the restored gospel.  As we acknowledge those whom God has chosen to lead and guide His church today we acknowledge that we are willing to submit to His authority and be led and guided by those whom He has chosen.  This is what Christ taught when He was on the earth, "Come follow me." 

There is more than one way to look at it.  You might think of it as God's authority in a very literal sense.  Others might see it as God's authority more symbolically, and that this symbolism isn't really necessary in a strict sense, that this symbolism could apply to any person or thing that the receiving audience chooses to grant authority to.  

For example, I can perceive in my mind that this sticky note in my hand has God's authority and it can have as much power in my life as any person with a title in the church hierarchy.  

So, for me authority is only important in as much as I grant it importance, and for me personally this concept of authority isn't a core message in the gospel, but rather is an appendage to the gospel.  Also, I don't believe Jesus emphasized this message in the NT either.  

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

I've been in a number of broadcast meetings, watching the proceedings of a meeting that is many miles away from the comfort of my local stake center.  In those situations, when a general authority enters the room on screen, those in the stake center stand up.  Wouldn't this indicate that the custom is for our own benefit and not to satisfy the ego of someone who can't even see the gesture?  It's similar to raising my hand to sustain the prophet when I watch general conference in my living room.  I do it as a witness to God, and as a witness to my myself, that I believe and respect the authority of those called by Him.