Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Buckeye]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

This is actually really helpful for the deacons so they know who to pass the sacrament to first. While it's not doctrine, and it wasn't the practice in Joseph's day, the church has long had the policy that the presiding authority takes the sacrament first. When someone other than the bishop is presiding (e.g., visiting stake presidency member) the deacons will not pick up on the change unless they are told. So I teach my young men to actively listen to the announcements to understand who is presiding.

[Buckeye]

13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Who knows. We all (especially me) tend to assume Christ acts how we would. Perhaps the best guide is the BOM where the people do not stand when Christ appears, but rather bow to the earth. That seems a lot more like worship to me than standing. And the account does not indicate that there was any command to bow, the people seemed to do it of their own volition. 

As for me, I tend to stand just because its common convention. I've heard a few apostles say that they dislike the practice, but have given up trying to get people to stop. I seem to recall President Hinckley signaling people to "sit down" but no one heeded.  In my experience, the practice is much more a reflection of member's desires than leadership.

Also, I'll add one experience to show how meaningful the practice is to some members. I was at priesthood session of last conference with my elderly grandfather. He is in poor health and it took him 20 minutes to walk from the entrance of the conference center to the first available handicap seat on the back row, first level. As soon as he sat down (which took another 2 minutes), President Monson entered the center and everyone stood. He spent the next 3 minutes getting to feet to stand for the Prophet. By that time President Monson and everyone else had already sat, but he insisted on finishing (and then slowing sitting again) so that he could show respect. What can I say? He's an old military guy, loves tradition and respect, and is as stubborn as a mule. So while I think the practice of standing is kind of silly, I certainly see how meaningful it is to many people and am confident the Lord smiles on their hearts.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Buckeye

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Well, there is a story in the New Testament where the Savior accepted a gesture of respect and honor.  It is in John 12:

Quote

1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

And also Mark 14:

Quote

3 ¶ And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Note here that the expression of respect is objected to by someone.  And that the narrative in John clarifies that this someone had ulterior (as in insincere, bad faith) motives for his objection.

We could also note the instance of Jesus washing the feet of his apostles, as recorded in John 13:

Quote

2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;

3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

5 After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Here Jesus gives an example to us.  He demonstrated His love for His servants by literally washing their feet.  As a token of love and respect, I think.  And then He charged them to do the same for each other.  This is why the Church actually has an ordinance of the washing of feet.  

Apart from the ordinance, there are other, less formal ways of carrying out the spirit of what Jesus taught here.  So I think the broader application and interpretation of this passage is that we ought to love and serve one another, and that this can and should include gestures and tokens of love and respect.  

I cannot help but contrast the Savior's conduct toward His apostles with the attitude of overt contempt and ridicule and animosity displayed by some in this thread at the notion of members of the Church - in the vein of John 13 - giving a gesture of respect and love to the Lord's servants.  And that gesture consists of . . . merely standing up.  Not bowing down and washing their feet, just standing up.

I am saddened at the open and public disrespect and contempt (perhaps even worse than that?) that some folks have for the General Authorities of the LDS Church.  I also cannot fathom how such hard feelings can be had by professed members of the Church.

I hope these folks have a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 16, 2017 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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.  

I completely disagree and think your perspective is the one that is being led astray.  

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I completely disagree and think your perspective is the one that is being led astray.  

I, on the other hand, believe ksfisher is spot on. Sacrament meeting is definitely not the place for one to to stand forth and brazenly oppose the united voice of the prophets and apostles, and those who insist on doing it need to be stopped forthwith, regardless of age or circumstance.

Sacrament meeting is a sanctuary to be instructed in the doctrines and teachings of the gospel and to be motivated to righteousness. It is not Hyde Park in London nor is it a live version of talk radio. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

First, thanks for confirming that you agree with Dan's perspective which I earlier had assumed you did.  I don't care to illucidate the problems I have with Dan's posts, but suffice it to say that his logic is not persuasive to me.  

Lastly, I didn't say anything in that thread that I feel needs a retraction, it was clearly back of the napkin math and this is merely a message board, and it's important not to take things too seriously here.  That reminder applies to me as much as anyone.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/15/2017 at 7:46 AM, hope_for_things said:

I'm not a fan of Bednar at all, and feel sorry for his wife, and hope he never makes the presidency.

Interesting comment and support through some likes.

No one "makes the Presidency." I remember that some members were mortified when Joseph Fielding Smith and later Ezra Benson became President. Some perceived JFS as austere and prudish. One of the absurd stories circulated about him was that he kept one foot out of the bathtub or shower in order to keep his garments on at all times. My mission president was JFS's youngest son. He often said his father was the most misunderstood man in the Church and told us many  examples of  his warmth, humor, and humanity. If his son was any indication, he was a wonderful man. Some folks didn't like Elder Benson for his political views. Most of their fears didn't materialize. 

How far are you willing to take this animus you feel towards Elder Bednar? It appears you are wishing for the death of an Apostle. Is this correct?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I, on the other hand, believe ksfisher is spot on. Sacrament meeting is definitely not the place for one to to stand forth and brazenly oppose the united voice of the prophets and apostles, and those who insist on doing it need to be stopped forthwith, regardless of age or circumstance.

Sacrament meeting is a sanctuary to be instructed in the doctrines and teachings of the gospel and to be motivated to righteousness. It is not Hyde Park in London nor is it a live version of talk radio. 

I'm open to improving upon the testimony meeting format and we might agree upon some elements of how those improvements could be made.  But your ideal testimony meeting doesn't exist anywhere that I've experienced Mormonism.  It's a fantasy version in your mind.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting comment and support through some likes.

No one "makes the Presidency." I remember that some members were mortified when Joseph Fielding Smith and later Ezra Benson became President. Some perceived JFS as austere and prudish. One of the absurd stories circulated about him was that he kept one foot out of the bathtub or shower in order to keep his garments on at all times. My mission president was JFS's youngest son. He often told us his father was the most misunderstood man in the Church and told us many  examples of  his warmth, humor, and humanity. If his son was any indication, he was a wonderful man. Some folks didn't like Elder Benson for his political views. Most of their fears didn't materialize. 

How far are you willing to take this animus you feel towards Elder Badnar? It appears you are wishing for the death of an Apostle. Is this correct?

Yikes, hoping someone never makes it to the office of president is not hoping they die.  I'm worried about how he'd govern based on some things I've noticed, I don't have any rumors about what he does in his private life.  

For Pres. Benson I can understand why some were worried based on his public positions and even his tendency towards conspiracy theories, but I would agree with you that as a president he largely governed in much more moderation.  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

First, thanks for confirming that you agree with Dan's perspective which I earlier had assumed you did.  I don't care to illucidate the problems I have with Dan's posts, but suffice it to say that his logic is not persuasive to me.  

Lastly, I didn't say anything in that thread that I feel needs a retraction, it was clearly back of the napkin math and this is merely a message board, and it's important not to take things too seriously here.  That reminder applies to me as much as anyone.  

Dan's point in both blog posts is that if something turns out in the long run to be true, then in theory, any supposed evidence against it must ultimately turn out to have been invalid. This is such a non-controversial point that I'm puzzled by the resistance to it. 

On your "back-of-the-napkin math," your assumptions were off the mark, grossly so, as it turns out. The thread was closed before I noticed that fact, and my sole reason for opening a new thread was that I couldn't point it out in the old one. I even invited the moderators to close the new thread after I had made my point. 

That you are now doubling down shows only that you are too blessed arrogant to admit when you're wrong, even after it has been clearly shown. 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Dan's point in both blog posts is that if something turns out in the long run to be true, then in theory, any supposed evidence against it must ultimately turn out to have been invalid. This is such a non-controversial point that I'm puzzled by the resistance to it. 

On your "back-of-the-napkin math," your assumptions were off the mark, grossly so, as it turns out. The thread was closed before I noticed that fact, and my sole reason for opening a new thread was that I couldn't point it out in the old one. I even invited the moderators to close the new thread after I had made my point. 

That you are now doubling down shows only that you are too blessed arrogant to admit when you're wrong, even after it has been clearly shown. 

Making it personal again.....

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm open to improving upon the testimony meeting format and we might agree upon some elements of how those improvements could be made.  But your ideal testimony meeting doesn't exist anywhere that I've experienced Mormonism.  It's a fantasy version in your mind.  

I'm not talking here about merely improving testimony meetings, which I agree could and should be done in places. 

I'm talking about not yielding the microphone to individuals whose unabashed intent is to brazenly oppose the established teachings of the Church and its body of leaders. Such a thing should never be allowed to happen. 

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Authority should be limited and questioned at all times.

Says who?

[Duncan]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting comment and support through some likes.

No one "makes the Presidency." I remember that some members were mortified when Joseph Fielding Smith and later Ezra Benson became President. Some perceived JFS as austere and prudish. One of the absurd stories circulated about him was that he kept one foot out of the bathtub or shower in order to keep his garments on at all times. My mission president was JFS's youngest son. He often told us his father was the most misunderstood man in the Church and told us many  examples of  his warmth, humor, and humanity. If his son was any indication, he was a wonderful man. Some folks didn't like Elder Benson for his political views. Most of their fears didn't materialize. 

How far are you willing to take this animus you feel towards Elder Bednar? It appears you are wishing for the death of an Apostle. Is this correct?

I Love Pres. Smith!!!!!!!!! he visited here on 2 or 3 occasions as an Apostle back in the days of the train and if you can take a train here hen hey you're in high cahoots with me and I like him for other reasons as well

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I completely disagree and think your perspective is the one that is being led astray.  

Where do you think that I'm being led astray?  Do you believe that the doctrine of the church supports same sex relationships?  If it does then I'm being led astray along with our prophets, seers, and revelators.

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by ksfisher

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps most people don't recognize the subtle distinction between "power" and "authority." They are listed as the first synonym in most references.

On the other hand, He-Man always said, "By the power of Grayskull." 

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

It's a facile way to cast opprobrium.

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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). 

 

Yep on both. Power and authority are very close synonyms.

Takeout. Like pizza or Chinese food. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Yep on both. Power and authority are very close synonyms.

Takeout. Like pizza or Chinese food. 

I have a theory on where the "take out" idiom came from. Those who borrow money from a bank are said to "take out" a loan. 

And I understand that in England if you are granted a degree from a college or university, you are said to "take out" a degree. 

I wonder if it came from either or both of those usages. 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yikes, hoping someone never makes it to the office of president is not hoping they die.  I'm worried about how he'd govern based on some things I've noticed, I don't have any rumors about what he does in his private life.  

For Pres. Benson I can understand why some were worried based on his public positions and even his tendency towards conspiracy theories, but I would agree with you that as a president he largely governed in much more moderation.  

"Yikes?" The only way Elder Bednar could become President is if he outlives his peers. Hoping he doesn't "make it" seems

like wishing for his premature demise. If he were to "make it," would you sustain him? How far will you take this animus?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm open to improving upon the testimony meeting format and we might agree upon some elements of how those improvements could be made.  But your ideal testimony meeting doesn't exist anywhere that I've experienced Mormonism.  It's a fantasy version in your mind.  

Our humble ward here in western Washington often meets that ideal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few others like ours scattered around the globe. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not talking here about merely improving testimony meetings, which I agree could and should be done in places. 

I'm talking about not yielding the microphone to individuals whose unabashed intent is to brazenly oppose the established teachings of the Church and its body of leaders. Such a thing should never be allowed to happen. 

And,  by the way, to have cohorts in the congregation filming the event shamefully to further an agenda.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Perhaps. On the other hand, maybe folks did whatever was their custom to show respect.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Yep.  I was referring to General Authorities only.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

This is actually really helpful for the deacons so they know who to pass the sacrament to first. While it's not doctrine, and it wasn't the practice in Joseph's day, the church has long had the policy that the presiding authority takes the sacrament first. When someone other than the bishop is presiding (e.g., visiting stake presidency member) the deacons will not pick up on the change unless they are told. So I teach my young men to actively listen to the announcements to understand who is presiding.

In one of Joseph Fielding Smith's biographies he purported complained to a bishop when he saw this practice.   When the bishop explained that it was a new church policy, Elder Smith remarked that he missed that Quorum meeting.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And,  by the way, to have cohorts in the congregation filming the event shamefully to further an agenda.

Yeah, that too, of course. Making video recordings of sacrament meetings is a clear violation of policy and amounts to trespassing. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd