Bill Reel’s Conference Predictions

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you expect there to be an explicit declaration of revelation in each and every instance of Church administration? 

No, I don’t.  

And in the absence of such a declaration, I’m comfortable assuming that our current practice of having priesthood holders pass the sacrament trays could easily be expanded to include women. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I don’t.  

And in the absence of such a declaration, I’m comfortable assuming that our current practice of having priesthood holders pass the sacrament trays could easily be expanded to include women. 

Yes, that’s possible. But I think it would be in accordance with a divine directive, one that would not necessarily be explicitly publicized as revelation. I would be fine with it if it happened, but unless and until it does, I’m content. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I don’t.  

And in the absence of such a declaration, I’m comfortable assuming that our current practice of having priesthood holders pass the sacrament trays could easily be expanded to include women. 

I think the Brethren have extrapolated that the administration of the Sacrament is a priesthood function.  This article has a pretty good summary of how the Sacrament was administered in the early days of the Church.

I'm not sure what "easily" means in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, that’s possible. But I think it would be in accordance with a divine directive, one that would not necessarily be explicitly publicized as revelation. I would be fine with it if it happened, but unless and until it does, I’m content. 

Agreed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Brethren have extrapolated that the administration of the Sacrament is a priesthood function.  This article has a pretty good summary of how the Sacrament was administered in the early days of the Church.

I'm not sure what "easily" means in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

From the link:

Quote

On June 22, 1836, Joseph Smith escorted his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, and aunt Clarissa to Painesville, Ohio, where these sisters would await their husbands’ return from a mission to the eastern states. Upon arrival, Joseph “broke bread” and administered the Lord’s Supper “after the ancient order.”[1] The company then ate and drank until “they satisfied their appetites.” According to George Q. Cannon, former member of the First Presidency, in the early years of the Church between 1830 and 1844, the “bread and the wine were not passed as is the custom now among us. It was an actual supper.” He believed that “this would be the proper manner to administer this ordinance now if circumstances permitted”; however, congregations apparently outgrew this approach.

KInd of wish we still did that. I could get used to a sumptuous and filling meal of a Sunday in observance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Brethren have extrapolated that the administration of the Sacrament is a priesthood function.  This article has a pretty good summary of how the Sacrament was administered in the early days of the Church.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't an "extrapolation."  But things that have been extrapolated can be un-extrapolated.

 

Quote

I'm not sure what "easily" means in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

"Easily" probably means it wouldn't require a revelation.  It would just be a change in policy.  It might rattle some more traditional members (as I've heard the shift to teenage Priesthood holders in the 1910s rattled the blue-hairs back then), but it could be done.

This reminds me of when I was a teenager, some young women in the ward would sometimes make homemade bread, and sometimes they would set a loaf aside for the sacrament on Sunday and they would bring it with them to Church.  So can we say that the "get the bread and bring it to Church" part of preparing the Sacrament isn't an actual Priesthood duty?

[Judd]

With all the wild guesses about conference, why hasn’t women receiving the priesthood surfaced?

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, Judd said:

With all the wild guesses about conference, why hasn’t women receiving the priesthood surfaced?

Because it's not close to as credible or plausible as even Reel's big stretches . . . 

Seriously. I don't think it's on anybody's radar. It was for some people during Kate Kelly's heyday, but now? Who thinks that that is imminent?

[rongo]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

I know that a bishop's job is tough... long hours, lots of pressure, never ending challenges.  I spent over four years as a bishop's counselor trying to do everything I could to ease my bishop's burden.  I took that responsibility very seriously (as did the other counselor, the ward clerk, and the executive secretary... it was a team effort to reduce the bishop's workload and stress-load).

I was also executive secretary to three bishops so I've had a front row seat to their demanding schedules for many years.

But, when it comes to one-on-one interviews (whether they are new temple recommends, counseling, discussing welfare situations, or extending certain calls and setting them apart), I just don't feel like when can eliminate that particular burden.  Some things need to be done by the bishop either because he has the keys or because he has the hearts of the ward members.

To illustrate that last one, I'll share this:  the bishop I last served with as a counselor did not enjoy public speaking (he was good at it, but it seemed to make him nervous).  But, I loved sitting on the stand and watching the way the ward members reacted and looked to him when he spoke.  I have a testimony of the bishop's mantle.

This. 

I really don't like the wishes of some to take away from the bishop's duties, stature, and importance in favor of adding them to the elders quorum or relief society presidents'. While there is a cry to relieve the bishops' burdens, I think this would be a grave mistake, and that the Church would be missing something very important if bishops were just glorified clerks who spend time with the youth. I, too, have experienced personally and seen the reverence people have for their bishops, and am not comfortable with attempts to shift that over to the EQP or RSP. 

I actually think that changes in this direction are plausible, and I'm uneasy with the thought. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't an "extrapolation."  But things that have been extrapolated can be un-extrapolated.

 

"Easily" probably means it wouldn't require a revelation.  It would just be a change in policy.  It might rattle some more traditional members (as I've heard the shift to teenage Priesthood holders in the 1910s rattled the blue-hairs back then), but it could be done.

This reminds me of when I was a teenager, some young women in the ward would sometimes make homemade bread, and sometimes they would set a loaf aside for the sacrament on Sunday and they would bring it with them to Church.  So can we say that the "get the bread and bring it to Church" part of preparing the Sacrament isn't an actual Priesthood duty?

It never has been considered such so long as I've been aware.

In fact, I'm not even aware of what the guidelines are pertaining to providing the bread for the sacrament. Currently, my family does it most of the time  for our ward, since my son is teachers quorum president, but I think that's according to custom, not definitive policy. I'm open to correction on this, since I don't have access to all of the Church leadership handbooks, but it's my current understanding.

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

"Easily" probably means it wouldn't require a revelation. 

If that's what it means, I would have to dispute the claim, since I believe the Brethren function continually under revelation in administering the Church, and a sea-change in that fundamental would require divine direction even if it were not a written and publicized revelation.

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not even aware of what the guidelines are pertaining to providing the bread for the sacrament

There are none.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There are none.

I suspected not.

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In fact, I'm not even aware of what the guidelines are pertaining to providing the bread for the sacrament.

In my ward, they have been passing gluten free crackers for a small handful of people.  It is mildly disturbing to me as it is not as symbolic of the "Bread of Life".

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

In my ward, they have been passing gluten free crackers for a small handful of people.  It is mildly disturbing to me as it is not as symbolic of the "Bread of Life".

We have a coeliac in our ward. She brings her own gluten-free bread now, but in the past, we used rice crackers. I think they're all 'bread'.

We've also done a good job of teaching our priests to break the gluten-free whatever first in order to avoid cross-contamination.

[Tacenda]

Don't know what some of these even mean, but a very LDS friend on FB posted it. Thought I'd share for fun.

[halconero]

4 hours ago, longview said:

In my ward, they have been passing gluten free crackers for a small handful of people.  It is mildly disturbing to me as it is not as symbolic of the "Bread of Life".

I mean, the bread Jesus broke for the Last Supper was flatbread. If it gets that specific then you might not have renewed your covenants since you turned 8/when you got baptized.

[e-eye]

12 hours ago, longview said:

In my ward, they have been passing gluten free crackers for a small handful of people.  It is mildly disturbing to me as it is not as symbolic of the "Bread of Life".

Ignorance is bliss! - that applys to you, not your ward. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Brethren have extrapolated that the administration of the Sacrament is a priesthood function.  This article has a pretty good summary of how the Sacrament was administered in the early days of the Church.

I'm not sure what "easily" means in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

From D&C 20:

58 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

Edited October 5, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Duncan]

55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From D&C 20:

58 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

Smac97 is saying the priesthood administers the sacrament but your verse defines what specifically what the teachers and deacons can't do, within the umbrella of the priesthood

[mfbukowski]

On 10/3/2018 at 10:21 PM, rockpond said:

I know that a bishop's job is tough... long hours, lots of pressure, never ending challenges.  I spent over four years as a bishop's counselor trying to do everything I could to ease my bishop's burden.  I took that responsibility very seriously (as did the other counselor, the ward clerk, and the executive secretary... it was a team effort to reduce the bishop's workload and stress-load).

I was also executive secretary to three bishops so I've had a front row seat to their demanding schedules for many years.

But, when it comes to one-on-one interviews (whether they are new temple recommends, counseling, discussing welfare situations, or extending certain calls and setting them apart), I just don't feel like when can eliminate that particular burden.  Some things need to be done by the bishop either because he has the keys or because he has the hearts of the ward members.

To illustrate that last one, I'll share this:  the bishop I last served with as a counselor did not enjoy public speaking (he was good at it, but it seemed to make him nervous).  But, I loved sitting on the stand and watching the way the ward members reacted and looked to him when he spoke.  I have a testimony of the bishop's mantle.

In fact bishops are strongly advised to do ONLY what bishops themselves MUST do and that which only they can do as a bishop.

One has to do that and delegate virtually everything else to others because there is plenty to do that only bishops CAN do.  If one was a truly great bishop magnifying his calling and doing every interview etc that he was supposed to do, it would probably take about 40 hours a week.  That's what I calculated when I was bishop.  And I was not a great bishop precisely because I did not put in that kind of time, unfortunately.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/3/2018 at 10:03 PM, halconero said:

What functions pertain to the office of common judge according to scripture? Could the Bishop retain those functions while also in a co-equal position with regards to settings apart and temple recommends? Are there callings which already exist in the ward which are seen as co-equal or roughly co-equal?

It depends on what one counts as "scripture".  Are the Handbooks "scripture"?  Essentially those functions are interviews- worthiness interviews, youth interviews, temple recommend interviews, baptismal interviews, follow up interviews on disciplinary councils, interviews for church "welfare" of various types, overseeing ward audits, - just some off the top of my head.  By their very nature all these "facts" about people must be known to only one human being- and that is the bishop.  People have a tendency to "go around" authority figures if they possibly can- as kids know well- if Mom says no, Dad might say yes!

So there is one person who knows who is receiving welfare AND has some domestic problem- perhaps paying alimony.  If one person is handling the welfare and the other person only knows that "Joe has some marital problems"- there is a chance that Joe could abuse the system by not letting the right hand know what the left is doing etc. 

AND of course these are very confidential matters.  If one knows someone is struggling with certain sexual proclivities which should not bring them into contact with young women, someone else should not be making the final decisions about who goes to Girl's camp.

We had one case where an individual was selected to be "the photographer" for girls camp-  and why bother telling the bishop about THAT, right?  What's the big deal??  Gosh why is he using a telephoto lens to take pictures of girls 20 feet away who are getting out of the pool?  And I won't go into the other pictures.

Well because the bishop did not know about it, it turned into a big deal.  He should never have been there.  So that is why the bishop has to approve all kinds of things no one would even think was necessary, because he is the only one who knows everything that has been disclosed to anyone- finances,  worthiness, tendencies, who is mad at whom,  why sister y should not be interacting with brother x,  etc etc etc.

So those are the kinds of details that ward members may not be aware of about bishops. And why they have to make "judgements" about everything all the time.  If it's a "judgement call" the bishop has to do it.

Co-equal callings?  I don't know what you mean.

Edited October 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From D&C 20:

58 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

This verse is defining administer as 'being in charge of, coordinate, or manage.'  

[halconero]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It depends on what one counts as "scripture".  Are the Handbooks "scripture"?  Essentially those functions are interviews- worthiness interviews, youth interviews, temple recommend interviews, baptismal interviews, follow up interviews on disciplinary councils, interviews for church "welfare" of various types, overseeing ward audits, - just some off the top of my head.  By their very nature all these "facts" about people must be known to only one human being- and that is the bishop.  People have a tendency to "go around" authority figures if they possibly can- as kids know well- if Mom says no, Dad might say yes!

So there is one person who knows who is receiving welfare AND has some domestic problem- perhaps paying alimony.  If one person is handling the welfare and the other person only knows that "Joe has some marital problems"- there is a chance that Joe could abuse the system by not letting the right hand know what the left is doing etc. 

AND of course these are very confidential matters.  If one knows someone is struggling with certain sexual proclivities which should not bring them into contact with young women, someone else should not be making the final decisions about who goes to Girl's camp.

We had one case where an individual was selected to be "the photographer" for girls camp-  and why bother telling the bishop about THAT, right?  What's the big deal??  Gosh why is he using a telephoto lens to take pictures of girls 20 feet away who are getting out of the pool?  And I won't go into the other pictures.

Well because the bishop did not know about it, it turned into a big deal.  He should never have been there.  So that is why the bishop has to approve all kinds of things no one would even think was necessary, because he is the only one who knows everything that has been disclosed to anyone- finances,  worthiness, tendencies, who is mad at whom,  why sister y should not be interacting with brother x,  etc etc etc.

So those are the kinds of details that ward members may not be aware of about bishops. And why they have to make "judgements" about everything all the time.  If it's a "judgement call" the bishop has to do it.

Co-equal callings?  I don't know what you mean.

Scripture is scripture, and the definition of common judge in there is not so wide sweeping as you’ve made it here. I’m fine with a Bishop remaining the sole head of disciplinary measures. The structure of wards, wherein a Bishop heads them, is a good model, one I believe to be inspired, but nowhere can I find something that says it can’t be changed.

By co-equal I mean that a Bishop, Relief Society President, and Elders Quorum President share the repsonsibilities, knowledge, and make decisions by consensus. This is similar to how the Quorum of the Twelve functions. Yes, there is one presiding, but decisions made there are done by unanimity.

Here’s the thing regarding the interviews and functions you’ve mentioned: many are alreay shared, and known by more than just the Bishop. Councillors to the Bishop routinely conduct temple recommend interviews, extend callings, and set people apart. 

Nor am I suggesting that one person be given “signing authority” along with three others. Many of the problems you mention arise when each of the three people I mentioned act independently. That’s not what I’m proposing, and many of the problems you’ve mentioned are eliminated by governing via consensus.

In many Bishoprics and High Councils, assignments are delegated out. Essentially what I’m proposing is giving the EQ and RS president a greater role than they have now by enabling them to conduct calling interviews (which they already do for callings within their own Quorums and auxiliaries), do temple recommend interviews (already a duty shared with councillors), and perhaps more roles in governing tne Melchezidek Priesthood and Women of the ward. It’s not about downgrading the Bishop. It’s about elevating the others, something for which I believe there to be a case in scripture and discourses pertaining to their structre and purpose in both scripture and discourses of the early church.

I don’t think the current model is wrong. I think it is inspired. I’m fine if it stays that way. I also think it could be reformed and adapted to the capacities and needs of the Saints, and for which there is much justification. 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, halconero said:

In many Bishoprics and High Councils, assignments are delegated out. Essentially what I’m proposing is giving the EQ and RS president a greater role than they have now by enabling them to conduct calling interviews (which they already do for callings within their own Quorums and auxiliaries), do temple recommend interviews (already a duty shared with councillors), and perhaps more roles in governing tne Melchezidek Priesthood and Women of the ward. It’s not about downgrading the Bishop. It’s about elevating the others, something for which I believe there to be a case in scripture and discourses pertaining to their structre and purpose in both scripture and discourses of the early church.

I don’t think the current model is wrong. I think it is inspired. I’m fine if it stays that way. I also think it could be reformed and adapted to the capacities and needs of the Saints, and for which there is much justification. 

1) The EQP already calls and set apart his own teachers and secretary. So, no change there necessary. I actually wouldn't have a problem with the RS president assigning sisters to be teachers, committee members, etc. --- as an assignment. She can't set them apart, though. That crosses the line, with me. That's a bishopric thing.

2) Temple recommend interviews from the EQP and the RSP? No, a million times, no! That is a common judge area, and the fact that this is delegated to counselors in the bishopric doesn't mean that it can be further delegated, in my view. That is *the* primary role of counselors; that's what they're there for. 

3) I'm not sure if you're proposing that the bishop must consult with the EQP and RSP on everything --- even if it's ultimately his decision. If that is what you're suggesting, then I am very much against that, too. That is what being a common judge in Israel means, and there are very good reasons to have that under one head (with counselors, in many cases). This "co-equal" model you speak of --- yuck!