Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

As I said, it does matter who presides.  Just not sure why it needs to be announced.
If people have issues what was said in General Conference they aren't going to President Monson even though he presides.
If the SP is presiding in a ward he will likely refer anyone with issues to the Bishop first anyway.

Presiding officer isn't about who deals with after the fact complaints.  It's about ensuring correct procedures are followed and conflicts that may arise are resolved.
Making sure that ordinances are performed correctly and the like.

[Calm]

Having watched the video, we can't see everything that is going on.  Sister Bednar didn't look at her husband only, she looked all around her.  She didn't stop because he wasn't getting up, but because no one was getting up.  And we can't tell if Elder Bednar was delaying himself because of someone else as there is no sound, etc.  It may have been as the narrator said in terms of the crowd waiting, but Sister Bednar herself to me looks much more aware of everyone else besides her husband to me.  She only turns to him at the end, looking like she wants to make a comment and then she realizes he is talking to the person on his other side, so she settles back to wait.

Off to the side, once they expand the picture, you can see people taking pictures.  I assume that pictures wouldn't have been taken during the meeting itself as that would have been disruptive. It is quite possible that they were waiting for the pictures to be taken and that Sister Bednar had forgotten this for a moment and thus was flustered and looking around wondering why everyone was waiting to get up.

In my wards at various times, the congregation is asked to remain seated while teachers get up and leave first so they can get to their classrooms or the library quickly.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said, it does matter who presides.  Just not sure why it needs to be announced.

Because in many cases there are likely people who don't know for various reasons (investigators for one, visitors for another).

It would be interesting to know when the practice started.  

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

 

This is a rather unique way, to say the least, of looking at authority as well as the teachings of Christ. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

 

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. 

Maybe they have picked it up from you.

[Scott Lloyd]

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 .....

I repeat: You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said, it does matter who presides.  Just not sure why it needs to be announced.
If people have issues what was said in General Conference they aren't going to President Monson even though he presides.
If the SP is presiding in a ward he will likely refer anyone with issues to the Bishop first anyway.

Presiding officer isn't about who deals with after the fact complaints.  It's about ensuring correct procedures are followed and conflicts that may arise are resolved.
Making sure that ordinances are performed correctly and the like.

And it's not important or useful for the congregation to know who is responsible for doing this why, exactly?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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.

Whether they care or not, I still don't get why that would be confusing. It strikes me that occasions would be rare when a high-ranking officer would show up in the middle of the meeting, but even when it happens, I don't see why it would be confusing to recognize the presence of the person and to point out that he is now the one presiding. It would be just the opposite of confusing, it seems to me. It would be clarifying.,

Quote

 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.  

Announcing that President So-and-So has just arrived and that he now presides would occupy what -- all of five or 10 seconds? And you call that a "confusing waste of time"?

As for it being an "unhealthy emphasis on authority," I think we've observed a recent circumstance when knowing who presides at a meeting would be important. The occasion was when the 12-year-old arose in fast and testimony meeting and began to spout counter-doctrinal propaganda. On such occasions of attempted hijacking of a meeting, the congregation needs to know who is in charge, especially when the would-be hijacker has in tow members of a tacit cheering section.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Announcing that President So-and-So has just arrived and that he now presides would occupy what -- all of five or 10 seconds? And you call that a "confusing waste of time"?

Do you also believe it should be announced when the person presiding leaves early and then announce who is now presiding?

Edited September 15, 2017 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

This is all confusing to me.  There has to be a way to mix humility with respect.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

I don't think people can legitimately preside in various ways, though, too. When I was a counselor in a bishopric, the bishop wanted to pass the sacrament with his son who was just ordained (his first time). Our high councilor, a wonderful man, strongly objected, and when I asked why not, he said because he needed to preside. When I asked where that is written, he said it was in the UOoT. I replied that he was still presiding over sacrament meeting if he's passing the sacrament.

It just goes to show what a wide range of thoughts on procedure there is among good, well-meaning people --- and how drift can happen through seemingly small steps.

Another item from last night's bishopric training: The stake presidency emphasized that we need to ensure people are invoking the authority of the priesthood, not the power in ordinances. I agree with this, have always done it myself, and teach it, but it is also labor lost and almost a fool's errand eradicating it from the Church. When we discussed whether ordinances should be stopped, I shared this, and my thought that I believe that we do the best we can, but should follow the Spirit and "hurt not the wine or the oil" (i.e., being too heavy-handed about this might be disruptive and not a good thing). I don't believe that the ordinance is invalidated by invoking the power instead of the authority.

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat: You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

I've seen some ironic statements on the board today but this one takes the cake, as they say.  👨🏿‍🍳

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat: You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

Hey...it was mentioned on another thread that we would not tell people what they think. 

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you also believe it should be announced when the person presiding leaves early and then announce who is now presiding?

I don't see that it would hurt.

But I'm not sure I've ever seen it done.

For that matter, I think it would be extremely rare for a presiding officer to leave a meeting early.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think people can legitimately preside in various ways, though, too. When I was a counselor in a bishopric, the bishop wanted to pass the sacrament with his son who was just ordained (his first time). Our high councilor, a wonderful man, strongly objected, and when I asked why not, he said because he needed to preside. When I asked where that is written, he said it was in the UOoT. I replied that he was still presiding over sacrament meeting if he's passing the sacrament.

It just goes to show what a wide range of thoughts on procedure there is among good, well-meaning people --- and how drift can happen through seemingly small steps.

Another item from last night's bishopric training: The stake presidency emphasized that we need to ensure people are invoking the authority of the priesthood, not the power in ordinances. I agree with this, have always done it myself, and teach it, but it is also labor lost and almost a fool's errand eradicating it from the Church. When we discussed whether ordinances should be stopped, I shared this, and my thought that I believe that we do the best we can, but should follow the Spirit and "hurt not the wine or the oil" (i.e., being too heavy-handed about this might be disruptive and not a good thing). I don't believe that the ordinance is invalidated by invoking the power instead of the authority.

At bishopric training, did the stake presidency give you chapter and verse on saying "authority of" vs. saying "power of"?

I have to admit that I don't remember off hand which of those I am apt to say when performing a priesthood ordinance. I'm willing to be corrected if need be, but I want to be sure the correction itself is on solid ground.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

This is a rather unique way, to say the least, of looking at authority as well as the teachings of Christ. 

Perhaps uniqueness is in the eye of the beholder, if you are a conservative orthodox believer, then I can see how you'd think its unique, but that doesn't mean it actually is that unique in the broader context of history and the Christian tradition.  

[rpn]

There might be a good reason to ask people not to move out of their chairs before those who must leave in a hurry do.   But the notion of not standing out of respect is just too close to idolatry to me.

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether they care or not, I still don't get why that would be confusing. It strikes me that occasions would be rare when a high-ranking officer would show up in the middle of the meeting, but even when it happens, I don't see why it would be confusing to recognize the presence of the person and to point out that he is now the one presiding. It would be just the opposite of confusing, it seems to me. It would be clarifying.,

Confusing because they may wonder why someone would bother to take the time to announce something so trivial and such a waste of time in a meeting.  That you even think it is important is confusing to me right in this moment.  

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Announcing that President So-and-So has just arrived and that he now presides would occupy what -- all of five or 10 seconds? And you call that a "confusing waste of time"?

As for it being an "unhealthy emphasis on authority," I think we've observed a recent circumstance when knowing who presides at a meeting would be important. The occasion was when the 12-year-old arose in fast and testimony meeting and began to spout counter-doctrinal propaganda. On such occasions of attempted hijacking of a meeting, the congregation needs to know who is in charge, especially when the would-be hijacker has in tow members of a tacit cheering section.

They could also announce the weather at various intervals throughout the meeting and that would take a mere five or 10 seconds to accomplish, but that would also be a waste of time.  Its totally pointless.  

For the example with the 12 yr old, I wouldn't have been surprised to see a bishopric member or the bishop (who happened to be out of town) stand up and cut her off from her testimony.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if any of the brethren on the stand took the initiative to do that.  Especially with the whole delegation of who is conducting the meeting for any given day, I would say the precedent would often fall to the conductor rather than the person presiding.  At any rate, that was bad form and uncalled for and a good example of authority overreach, so I'm glad you reminded us of that example.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Confusing because they may wonder why someone would bother to take the time to announce something so trivial and such a waste of time in a meeting.  That you even think it is important is confusing to me right in this moment.  

You are easily confused.

This is getting a little nutty.
 

Quote

 

They could also announce the weather at various intervals throughout the meeting and that would take a mere five or 10 seconds to accomplish, but that would also be a waste of time.  Its totally pointless.  

 

A weather report is not germane to the meeting; the identity of the presiding officer.

Quote

For the example with the 12 yr old, I wouldn't have been surprised to see a bishopric member or the bishop (who happened to be out of town) stand up and cut her off from her testimony.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if any of the brethren on the stand took the initiative to do that.  Especially with the whole delegation of who is conducting the meeting for any given day, I would say the precedent would often fall to the conductor rather than the person presiding.  At any rate, that was bad form and uncalled for and a good example of authority overreach, so I'm glad you reminded us of that example.  

That you regard it as "authority overreach" telegraphs a great deal about your attitude in this discussion.

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rpn said:

There might be a good reason to ask people not to move out of their chairs before those who must leave in a hurry do.   But the notion of not standing out of respect is just too close to idolatry to me.

As someone who has been a teacher of young kids who could not be left unsupervised, who needs to move at weird times, and who usually needs to exit as quickly as possible in order to get somewhere I can privately do some major stretching or to take medication, I do find the waiting to stand for an church leader at anytime to be asking too much.  If that were to occur in a meeting I was in, chances are that would mean I would have to get up and leave before the prayer, which takes away from my ability to be part of the community in one of the most important parts of the meeting, imo.

OTOH, a number of years ago I have also seen people start to get up and leave at the end of conference as if they were at a basketball game during the last talk.  With that many leaving, it certainly appeared as if it was for the purpose of beating the traffic.  It was very distracting.  Perhaps there has been a new emphasis on the waiting to stand because this was happening too much.

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think people can legitimately preside in various ways, though, too. When I was a counselor in a bishopric, the bishop wanted to pass the sacrament with his son who was just ordained (his first time). Our high councilor, a wonderful man, strongly objected, and when I asked why not, he said because he needed to preside. When I asked where that is written, he said it was in the UOoT. I replied that he was still presiding over sacrament meeting if he's passing the sacrament.

It just goes to show what a wide range of thoughts on procedure there is among good, well-meaning people --- and how drift can happen through seemingly small steps.

Agreed.  I think that High Councilor was in error there.  Presiding authority still presides, even if not sitting on the stand.  (Also, doesn't the Stake High Councilor preside over the Bishop anyway?  Or is that just the Stake Presidency?)
And I greatly admire a Bishop (who is also the President of the Priest's quorum) working so closely with the Aaronic priesthood.

Quote

Another item from last night's bishopric training: The stake presidency emphasized that we need to ensure people are invoking the authority of the priesthood, not the power in ordinances. I agree with this, have always done it myself, and teach it, but it is also labor lost and almost a fool's errand eradicating it from the Church. When we discussed whether ordinances should be stopped, I shared this, and my thought that I believe that we do the best we can, but should follow the Spirit and "hurt not the wine or the oil" (i.e., being too heavy-handed about this might be disruptive and not a good thing). I don't believe that the ordinance is invalidated by invoking the power instead of the authority.

I agree again.  I don't believe say "by the power" instead of "by the authority" changes efficacy at all.  Just an issue of being more correct.
Either way it's Christ's power or authority being used.

 

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I would say the precedent would often fall to the conductor rather than the person presiding. 

No, this does not and would not happen without consulting with the presiding authority in that meeting.  A counselor in a bishopric, for example, may suggest an action, but would not take any action without the consent of the bishop or other presiding authority.  To think otherwise is to misunderstand church governance.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are easily confused.

This is getting a little nutty.
 

A weather report is not germane to the meeting; the identity of the presiding officer.

That you regard it as "authority overreach" telegraphs a great deal about your attitude in this discussion.

 

Your perspective is also clear, no criticisms are valid PoV.  Dan P. would be proud.

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 At any rate, that was bad form and uncalled for and a good example of authority overreach, so I'm glad you reminded us of that example.  

The bishop, or othr presiding authority, is responsible for the content of and has an obligation to see that correct doctrine is taught in church meetings.  What is bad form is to hijack a meeting to put across your own particular view, especially when that view is in opposition to the doctinre of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

It is completely within the authority of a presiding officer to ask anyone to sit down who is teaching false doctine.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Scott's statement about never seeing this happen, is similar to the Dan Peterson blog post of a week or so ago about there never being any valid criticisms of the church.  This idea is rooted, not in objective observable reality, but in the subjective views of his position of loyalty to the institution.  

I think hope_for_things's and Pete Ahlstrom's idea of a show of respect and courtesy being "hero worship" is rooted, not in objective reality, but in subjective views of their own position of disdain and contempt for the institution.