Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Duncan]

4 hours 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.

That difference between authority and power has also been emphasized here as well, the authority comes through ordination but power comes through righteous living

[rongo]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Yes, although there was extensive discussion, with no "Resolved:" as an outcome. 

In my experience, so many people say "power" despite teaching and emphasis on saying "authority" (which I fully agree with), that it is hitting our head against the wall to expect 100% perfection. It's like expecting that we will ever be successful getting people to stop saying "took out her endowments."   I don't believe that it invalidates the ordinance, and I definitely don't think we should stop ordinances in progress because of "power."

The harder thing for me was the emphasis out of the coordinating council based on the training in the Tabernacle of announcing every real-time change in presiding officers. Again, the model held out to us was the frequent ebb and flow during a four-hour meeting (FP and apostles coming and going --- each change of which was announced). While not common, per se, at the local level, it does happen that the stake president comes into sacrament meeting and sits on the stand while the meeting is in progress --- and has had to leave before it was over. One of his counselors had also come in and was sitting with his family. Under the direction, we should have announced both changes, which would have been awkward and disruptive. 

I think Elder Zwick's attempt to catch a sacrament meeting in the congregation would be better. He still presides due to his presence, but doesn't need to do a big to-do about it. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by rongo

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe they have picked it up from you.

Doubtful, though that's kind of you to say. They probably picked it up the same way that I did though - from parents and others teaching them to value courtesy and showing respect for others. 

 

14 hours ago, rpn said:

But the notion of not standing out of respect is just too close to idolatry to me.

Probably best that you try and steer clear of Texas then. We stand up for folks all the time. 

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Amulek

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I have always been taught that the proper formulation is to use "authority of" instead of "power of." I think there is a distinction between authority and power but, as other's have said, I think God knows what we're talking about.

If you are looking for documentation though, I would probably use this. 

 

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Her doctrine wasn't false and she was moved by the spirit.  

The doctrine that she put forward was and is in direct conflict with the teaching of the church in regards to the structure of the family here on earth.  Her stated desire to have a same sex relationship in the future is contrary to the laws of God and of His church.  If someone believes that they are moved upon by the spirit to teach such doctrine they are being led astray.  

Edited September 16, 2017 by ksfisher

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

I agree this kind of thing can get out of hand.  It is okay to show courtesy to people, but this kind of deference to authority along with the church's fixation with outer appearances (facial hair, white shirts, etc) reminds me of some of the practices of the pharisees that Christ spoke against. 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a lifetime of Church membership, I've never seen a person conducting a meeting usurp the role that rightfully belongs to the person who is presiding. The very notion seems alien to me.

That has been my experience as well. 

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

The word authority should be used, not power.  An example of this is in the instructions for blessing a child found in Handbook 2 20.2.2.  Similar instructions are also given for the performance of other blessings, ordinations, and conferrals.   

    1. Addresses Heavenly Father.

    2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

    3. Gives the child a name.

    4. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.

    5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

Of course no efficacy is lost by using the word power instead of authority, but it's nice to get it right when you can. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The word authority should be used, not power.  An example of this is in the instructions for blessing a child found in Handbook 2 20.2.2.  Similar instructions are also given for the performance of other blessings, ordinations, and conferrals.   

    1. Addresses Heavenly Father.

    2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

    3. Gives the child a name.

    4. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.

    5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

Of course no efficacy is lost by using the word power instead of authority, but it's nice to get it right when you can. 

I typically go to the ordinances section in the Family Guidebook to bone up before I perform an ordinance, and I'm sure that replicates what's in the Handbook. Perhaps I do say "authority" all or most of the time. I just don't remember offhand. But I'll be more careful going forward. 

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

The harder thing for me was the emphasis out of the coordinating council based on the training in the Tabernacle of announcing every real-time change in presiding officers. Again, the model held out to us was the frequent ebb and flow during a four-hour meeting (FP and apostles coming and going --- each change of which was announced).

So by real-time you mean literal, at-the-very-moment real time? As in: interrupt a speaker to announce the change, real time? Or can you wait until a speaker has finished his remarks before announcing the change?

Was there any instruction that would be analogous to what we see in the handbook about adapting to your specific circumstances? Just curious really. 

[ksfisher]

Is it just me or is it becoming increasingly commom for those who don't like a particular church rule or policy to denigrate it by calling it pharisaical?  It's almost being used in the same way as the word nazi to cast aspersions upon said rule, policy, or even those who support them.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I have always been taught that the proper formulation is to use "authority of" instead of "power of." I think there is a distinction between authority and power but, as other's have said, I think God knows what we're talking about.

If you are looking for documentation though, I would probably use this. 

 

Thanks. That is in fact what I use. And I probably get it right most if not all of the time. I just don't remember whether I do. I will from now on, though. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is it just me or is it becoming increasingly commom for those who don't like a particular church rule or policy to denigrate it by calling it pharisaical?  It's almost being used in the same way as the word nazi to cast aspersions upon said rule, policy, or even those who support them.

No, it's not just you. It's a favorite buzz word for self-styled progressives. 

Another favorite is legalistic, though that's more apt to be used by evangelicals, particularly of an anti-Mormon stripe. 

Or you might get called fundamentalist for anything from holding to the  historicity of the Book of Mormon to careful observance of the law of chastity or the Word of Wisdom or the Sabbath. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Yes, although there was extensive discussion, with no "Resolved:" as an outcome. 

In my experience, so many people say "power" despite teaching and emphasis on saying "authority" (which I fully agree with), that it is hitting our head against the wall to expect 100% perfection. It's like expecting that we will ever be successful getting people to stop saying "took out her endowments."   I don't believe that it invalidates the ordinance, and I definitely don't think we should stop ordinances in progress because of "power."

The harder thing for me was the emphasis out of the coordinating council based on the training in the Tabernacle of announcing every real-time change in presiding officers. Again, the model held out to us was the frequent ebb and flow during a four-hour meeting (FP and apostles coming and going --- each change of which was announced). While not common, per se, at the local level, it does happen that the stake president comes into sacrament meeting and sits on the stand while the meeting is in progress --- and has had to leave before it was over. One of his counselors had also come in and was sitting with his family. Under the direction, we should have announced both changes, which would have been awkward and disruptive. 

I think Elder Zwick's attempt to catch a sacrament meeting in the congregation would be better. He still presides due to his presence, but doesn't need to do a big to-do about it. 

Honestly, Ive never seen the wording in priesthood blessings ("power of" vs "authority of") made an issue of until now. 

I agree with you on "take out her endowments." That grates on me. I wonder where that idiom originated. And it's endowment (singular), not endowments (plural). 

The presiding officer announcement doesn't bother me. It's good for everyone to know who's in charge. 

One thing that really bothers me: when a clerk or executive secretary is said to be "in the bishopric." You're not in the bishopric unless you're the bishop or one of the two counselors. No exceptions. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours 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 [spelling sic; emphasis added by Kenngo1969] behavior as proof?

!*(&%!! Auto-Correct!  

Sorry.   Couldn't resist!  

[Thinking]

I served my mission in Peru in the early 1980's. Elder Abrea came and spoke at a conference, and my companion was assigned to conduct the meeting. After Elder Abrea spoke my companion stood up and thanked him and introduced the closing song. After the meeting Elder Abrea scolded my companion for "speaking" after him. He was told that he should have introduced the closing song at the same time that he introduced Elder Abrea. Neither of us had ever been trained on such things.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/15/2017 at 6:42 PM, hope_for_things said:

To correct the record, the specific quote I was referring to from Dan's first post was not in the title of the post, I remembered that incorrectly, it was in the body of the post.  Here is the quote.  

"It’s in that sense that I say that there can, in the end, be no valid evidence against the claims of Mormonism.  Ultimately, you see, there can never be proof that something that is true is actually false."

Furthermore I believe the Mods closed that last thread precisely because of your negative slander towards me and what you think was playing loose with stats, but why don't you keep up the personal jabs while you're at it and maybe you can get this thread closed too.  

At long last, you still don't get it. Dan said there can be valid criticisms against the Church, but he drew a distinction between that and saying there is valid "evidence" against its truthfulness. Those two things are not the same. So you did misquote him. 

On the other thing, I will propose a quid pro quo. I will retract my tongue-in-cheek use of the terms "statistical sleight-of-hand" and "statistical legerdemain" if you will admit honest error in your assumptions when you did what you called your "quick math" on the other thread. You assumed Smac97 had in mind all 10 quorums of the Seventy (actually there are only eight) when he actually was referring only to the First and Second Quorums, the ones that contain General Authorties. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain none of the quorums have a complete number of Seventy members. But even if they did, we're only talking about the First and Second Quotums, so the total would be at most 147 total members, not 707 as you erroneously assumed. So the ratio of ethnic members to white would be between 25 and 30 percent. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

I served my mission in Peru in the early 1980's. Elder Abrea came and spoke at a conference, and my companion was assigned to conduct the meeting. After Elder Abrea spoke my companion stood up and thanked him and introduced the closing song. After the meeting Elder Abrea scolded my companion for "speaking" after him. He was told that he should have introduced the closing song at the same time that he introduced Elder Abrea. Neither of us had ever been trained on such things.

I wonder what so important about having the GA speak last.   It seems like a silly rule.

[Johnnie Cake]

I'm pretty sure Jesus demanded that He stand up before everyone else also...Right?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Is it just me or is it becoming increasingly commom for those who don't like a particular church rule or policy to denigrate it by calling it pharisaical? 

I doubt it.  I think it has been common usage since my youth in the 70s.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

!*(&%!! Auto-Correct!  

Sorry.   Couldn't resist!  

Amen to that.

[rpn]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

Probably best that you try and steer clear of Texas then. We stand up for folks all the time. 

 

Spontaneously standing up in appreciation or respect is very different from compelled or prompted standing up. 

 

[Amulek]

20 minutes ago, rpn said:

Spontaneously standing up in appreciation or respect is very different from compelled or prompted standing up. 

Standing up as a display of respect is a learned behavior. How would anybody learn to do so if they weren't ever prompted - either directly from instruction or indirectly through observation?

By the way, the church can't compel you to do anything, so let's not even pretend that's a thing. 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

So by real-time you mean literal, at-the-very-moment real time? As in: interrupt a speaker to announce the change, real time? Or can you wait until a speaker has finished his remarks before announcing the change?

Was there any instruction that would be analogous to what we see in the handbook about adapting to your specific circumstances? Just curious really. 

I'm taking the position that we don't have to be completely awkward and disruptive. We don't have to interrupt a speaker to announce that Elvis has entered or left the building . . .  

The whole impetus behind it was the fact that apparently our coordinating council area (ca. 10 stakes or so) should expect some GA visitors in wards over the next several months. Our Area Authority doesn't want us to be caught like a deer in the headlights. 

Too bad Elder Zwick isn't likely to be one of them . . .  

[Buckeye]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I wonder what so important about having the GA speak last.   It seems like a silly rule.

The idea, as it was taught to me, is that the presiding authority speaks last because he has the responsibility to correct anything in error that was spoken earlier. That's why the Prophet always speaks last at a conference and the stake president (assuming he is presiding) at stake conference. 

While I get the sense of that, it is over the top to suggest that merely announcing the closing hymn after the presiding authority speaks is some kind of violation. I mean, if you want to be that technical, then person giving the closing prayer is in violation too (even more so because they are substantively speaking rather than just reading from the bulletin).

Also, the idea that presiding authorities speak last to be able to correct earlier speakers is the reason why traditionally, when couples speak in sacrament meeting, the man goes last. I don't agree with that practice, but that's the reason.