Gilding the Lily?: Adding Traditions/Customs to Gospel Observances

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

True.  Yet  I imagine that the bonding which often occurs in a bishopric includes the clerks.  

No doubt about it. But that doesn’t make the clerks members of the bishopric. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In practice this is what I have seen. It is five people working together to make the ward work with different responsibilities and I have never felt less then because of it.

A new president was called in our stake a few months back. Afterward, the member of the Seventy who conducted this business held an introductory training. In it, he said to the newly called president, 'If you're smart, you'll realise you have two formal counsellors and several informal ones in your presidency. Council with all of them, and you're more likely to avoid mistakes'.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have to admit, if a primary president were to wear pants in my region to sacrament meeting and to primary,  it likely would not fly.

That's not quite how it worked for us. A sister in our ward who has always and forever worn nothing but pants to church was called as the primary president. Before that, she was the primary song leader. She's been fantastic in both callings. Everyone in the ward loves her.

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

True.  Yet  I imagine that the bonding which often occurs in a bishopric includes the clerks.  

It does. I think I spend more time with the Bishop then anyone except possibly his Secretary. A lot of that time is admittedly throwing paper at him and telling him to sign it. There is a also a sense of camaraderie and fellowship from being in the circle of confidentiality. There are only a few people you can counsel with over these confidential matters which tends to promote unity.

One other responsibility I try to take very seriously is that the clerk is a check on the bishop’s almost unlimited power over the ward’s finances. They get access to all the financial records and have to sign off on everything. If both a Bishop and Ward Clerk “go bad” or either one is lax the consequences can be very bad. This happens very rarely in the US but in some parts of the world it happens too often. I try to scrutinize any expense I was not already involved in to know what it involved. We try to avoid having any money go to the Clerk or the Bishop (especially) but it does happen that they need reimbursement and we document the hell out of those transactions and attach Stake President approval if possible. Both happened this year. It is going to be a fun audit.  

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The more important point, in my view, is to avoid confusing the rank-and-file. In brief, the bishopric holds a position of leadership over ward members; the executive secretary and the clerks do not. 

I believe it was The Nehor who pointed out that in the absence of the entire bishopric, it falls to the elders quorum president to preside, not the clerk or executive secretary. 

Also, they have different lines of Priesthood authority. Clerks and the Secretary have the EQ President as their quorum leader. The Bishopric belong to another quorum presided over by the Stake President.

One other feature of the distinction is that clerks and the secretary stay on when the Bishopric changes. This provides a kind of “continuity of government” for the new bishop. They can get the new bishopric up to speed as to what is going on, explain the reasoning behind decisions previously made, speak of confidential matters the Bishopric needs to continue to address, and in some cases know more about how to run a ward in terms of Handbook and tradition and “unwritten order of things” knowledge then some new bishoprics may know little or nothing about depending on their previous callings.

One thing I try to consciously do is not become a kind of “power behind the throne” or to hold reservations about decisions the bishop has made that I disagree with even if my reasons are sounder. My job is to support the bishop. I can get heard and can often get my way on things even outside my strict sphere of responsibility. I remind myself that the Bishop makes the decisions and it is my duty to support him and supply information. Partisanship over decisions has no place in the church organization. Even if you cannot respect the man you have to respect the keys. That being said I fortunately respect all the Bishops I have served under as a clerk and as a secretary.

I once got smacked down a bit by God for taking a little too much pleasure in counsel I gave to a bishop. The Stake President disagreed and went to Salt Lake to change something that was done and Salt Lake pushed back hard. I was a little too internally smug.

Edited August 15, 2019 by The Nehor

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s a false dichotomy here: Wear a watch or carry a smartphone. Ever hear of a silent, battery-operated watch? 

And as much as I love my iPhone, pulling it out of my pocket and pressing a button (assuming I even have it on my person at the time) will never match the convenience of a quick glance at my wrist when I need to know what time it is. 

It’s also less conspicuous to steal a glance at the wrist when the conversation becomes tedious, when there is a pending appointment you need to keep, or when the sacrament meeting speaker is running overtime.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A new president was called in our stake a few months back. Afterward, the member of the Seventy who conducted this business held an introductory training. In it, he said to the newly called president, 'If you're smart, you'll realise you have two formal counsellors and several informal ones in your presidency. Council with all of them, and you're more likely to avoid mistakes'.

A counselor in our Stake Presidency keeps threatening to make all Ward Clerks and Ward Executive Secretaries into High Priests for some of the few remaining distinctions there are in the office of Elder and High Priest left in terms of church government. Fortunately he has not convinced the Stake President yet.

I should be clear that there are differences in the two offices and how their Priesthood functions in your life but in terms of Church organization there is now almost no difference between an Elder and a High Priest who is not serving in a “High Priest calling”. The few instances where the difference can still matter are not fun responsibilities.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No doubt about it. But that doesn’t make the clerks members of the bishopric. 

Formally, correct.  In spirit, inconsequential imo. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s also less conspicuous to steal a glance at the wrist when the conversation becomes tedious, when there is a pending appointment you need to keep, or when the sacrament meeting speaker is running overtime.

Yes. It’s even less conspicuous than looking at a clock on the wall. 

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that’s just it: The one specific thing it does I happen to need countless times in the course of a day. The “marginal” convenience of not having to pull a device out of my pocket and press a button when I need to know the time is multiplied each of those countless times. Behold, the convenience is no longer “marginal.”

But the marginal convenience of not having to pull something out of your pocket and press a button (does your phone really not have an 'always on' display? I thought that was common now) only applies when you are in a situation where (1) your phone is in your pocket and (2) you don't have ready access to some other method of telling time.

Maybe I'm an outlier here, but I spend most of my day in an office environment. I set my cell phone (with its always on display) beside me on my desk. It sits right next to my physical office phone, which also displays the time, but I rarely need to look at either of them because my computer shows the time in my taskbar, and my email/calendar app sends me notifications whenever I need to be in a meeting - where, admittedly, cell phones are discouraged, but which always take place in a conference room which (you guessed it) has a clock. 

When I'm not at work, I'm usually at home (clocks easily visible in pretty much every room) or driving somewhere in my car (clock in the heads up display). When I'm actually inside a store or at a restaurant there usually isn't a clock handy, so those are times where a wristwatch could be marginally better than my phone, but most of the time that isn't the case. 

Don't get me wrong, I can thing of situations where watches are useful. However, I don't happen to find myself in those situations very often, and I think lots of people - especially those of the younger generation - tend to be of a similar mindset with respect to their utility. They clearly offer some benefit - just not so much of a benefit that you can't get by without one just fine. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Formally, correct.  In spirit, inconsequential imo. 

What about the matter of who does and who does not hold a leadership position over the people in the ward? That cannot and should not be dismissed as inconsequential. 

And The Nehor has touched on this a bit, but it is possible that a person of strong will in an ancillary position may try, consciously or unconsciously, to dominate the group dynamic. At such a time, it would indeed be consequential that everyone understands who does and who does not belong to the bishopric. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But the marginal convenience of not having to pull something out of your pocket and press a button (does your phone really not have an 'always on' display? I thought that was common now) only applies when you are in a situation where (1) your phone is in your pocket and (2) you don't have ready access to some other method of telling time.

Maybe I'm an outlier here, but I spend most of my day in an office environment. I set my cell phone (with its always on display) beside me on my desk. It sits right next to my physical office phone, which also displays the time, but I rarely need to look at either of them because my computer shows the time in my taskbar, and my email/calendar app sends me notifications whenever I need to be in a meeting - where, admittedly, cell phones are discouraged, but which always take place in a conference room which (you guessed it) has a clock. 

When I'm not at work, I'm usually at home (clocks easily visible in pretty much every room) or driving somewhere in my car (clock in the heads up display). When I'm actually inside a store or at a restaurant there usually isn't a clock handy, so those are times where a wristwatch could be marginally better than my phone, but most of the time that isn't the case. 

Don't get me wrong, I can thing of situations where watches are useful. However, I don't happen to find myself in those situations very often, and I think lots of people - especially those of the younger generation - tend to be of a similar mindset with respect to their utility. They clearly offer some benefit - just not so much of a benefit that you can't get by without one just fine. 

 

If my phone has an always-on function, I don’t know about it. And I wouldn’t use it if it did. I wouldn’t want the constant power drain. 

And even when I worked at a desk job, there was still a significant portion of my day (and night) when I wasn’t at my desk. 

Edited to add: And there is always a substantial part of the time when I’m not carrying my phone: doing yard work or sports, for example (too great a hazard that it will be damaged). Or during service in the temple, when we are expected not to carry a phone. Or when I’m getting dressed, or shaving, or brushing my teeth. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. It’s even less conspicuous than looking at a clock on the wall. 

If my phone has an always-on function, I don’t know about it. And I wouldn’t use it if it did. I wouldn’t want the constant power drain. 

And even when I worked at a desk job, there was still a significant portion of my day (and night) when I wasn’t at my desk. 

Edited to add: And there is always a substantial part of the time when I’m not carrying my phone: doing yard work or sports, for example (too great a hazard that it will be damaged). Or during service in the temple, when we are expected not to carry a phone. Or when I’m getting dressed, or shaving, or brushing my teeth. 

A gentleman never looks at a clock on the wall while in the company of a lady. A gentleman does not silence his watch before an important business meeting, the opera, or a night at the cinema. A watch never betrays its owner by playing obnoxious tunes when the gentleman is trying to remain undetected. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[provoman]

On 8/14/2019 at 8:59 AM, CV75 said:

I hope you don’t mean this and similar statements: “Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.” (see Alma 8:11; 21:8; 30:14, 23, 27).

But yes, some traditions are still foolish (I think “wicked” captures the intent from the Book of Mormon and D&C better) but some are actually good, for example: Alma 9:8, 16-17; 3 Nephi 1:9, 11 and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.

The first part of D&C 46 (verses 1-6) is all about our traditions, customs, practices, etc., especially in our meetings. A good rule of thumb is found in verse 7, which I think this has been followed in preparing our handbooks and a principle good leaders typically keep in mind.

Doing something and demanding - by way of exclusion from participation - others conform because of "custom"/tradition/it is just how we always do it...does not build a community in my opinion.

As suggested earlier in this thread the focus should be on expanding participation and build the community based on mutual participation/accomplishment.

[Danzo]

I think one of the more curious aspects of the church that exists in the US is the segregation by age and marital status with activities.

0-3 years old go to nursury

3-11 go to primary 

11-18 got to young men

18-31 unmarried go to some activities

31+ unmarried go to other activities

17 year olds shall not dance with 19 year olds

29 year olds shall not go with 32 year olds.  Etc

It seems a bit stupid and arbitrary to me.

In other parts of the world, and in other cultures, it is not uncommon for an 80 year old to dance with a teenager at a ward party, but for some reason that seems to be forbidden here in the states. 

 

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, provoman said:

Doing something and demanding - by way of exclusion from participation - others conform because of "custom"/tradition/it is just how we always do it...does not build a community in my opinion.

As suggested earlier in this thread the focus should be on expanding participation and build the community based on mutual participation/accomplishment.

It depends on what the object of concern is. I don't see "just because" being used to justify any of the customs and traditions I've been talking about. I think "mutual" is the operative word in expanding participation in any of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It depends on what the object of concern is. I don't see "just because" being used to justify any of the customs and traditions I've been talking about. I think "mutual" is the operative word in expanding participation in any of them.

Mutual approbation would seem to be the lifeblood of any tradition. If people cease to enjoy the tradition, it soon dies. 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about the matter of who does and who does not hold a leadership position over the people in the ward? That cannot and should not be dismissed as inconsequential. 

And The Nehor has touched on this a bit, but it is possible that a person of strong will in an ancillary position may try, consciously or unconsciously, to dominate the group dynamic. At such a time, it would indeed be consequential that everyone understands who does and who does not belong to the bishopric. 

To be honest I’ve never observed a clerk with a strong enough personality to dominate anything. Not that it couldn’t happen.  Generally strong personalities tend to get utilized where that quality is needed, in my neck of the woods. 

i suppose if a clerk were to give advice(for example) to a ward member and the ward member felt as though the position of clerk gave the advice weight then that’s on the unfortunate fool who gave too much credence to the power of clerk. 

Has this type of power misappropriation problem affected someone around you? I mean IMO it’s one of those “I suppose that’s possible”- I don’t know of any situation in my life where someone has perceived that the clerk receives holy revelation for the ward or has influence other than to instruct in financial policy or procedure or record info. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If my phone has an always-on function, I don’t know about it. And I wouldn’t use it if it did. I wouldn’t want the constant power drain. 

If your phone officially supports it (e.g., Samsung, Pixel, and a few others) then there is dedicated hardware / software to keep battery drain to a minimum; we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5% per hour, which is essentially nothing for such a useful feature. If you have an iPhone or some other Android manufacturer who doesn't support it natively, then you'll have to make use of a third-party app to do it, though it will be a bit more costly (say, around 5% / hour) but still pretty tolerable if you aren't a power user.

Come on Scott. Try it, you'll like it. Just once won't hurt.  

 

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

To be honest I’ve never observed a clerk with a strong enough personality to dominate anything. Not that it couldn’t happen.  Generally strong personalities tend to get utilized where that quality is needed, in my neck of the woods. 

i suppose if a clerk were to give advice(for example) to a ward member and the ward member felt as though the position of clerk gave the advice weight then that’s on the unfortunate fool who gave too much credence to the power of clerk. 

Has this type of power misappropriation problem affected someone around you? I mean IMO it’s one of those “I suppose that’s possible”- I don’t know of any situation in my life where someone has perceived that the clerk receives holy revelation for the ward or has influence other than to instruct in financial policy or procedure or record info. 

It is usually more subtle then that. No one thinks the clerk is in charge or getting revelation for the ward (though they can to a degree because one of their jobs is to counsel the bishop who can follow though on it). The closest I ever came was another ward serving as clerk. The ward secretary and I both had strong but not forceful personalities. The bishop was an older agreeable guy. He loved the ward and the ward adored him. On the night we did interviews the bishop would do the interviews and the secretary and I would be out in the hall or in the clerk’s office and we would talk and come up with plans and ideas for the ward. After the Bishop was done we would often talk with the bishop for an hour afterwards and tell him what we came up with and he pretty much always went along with it and it was stuff that specifically did not have to do with our callings and responsibilities. Things like leadership meeting schedules, who should be the next Relief Society President, Fifth Sunday ideas, and things of that nature.

We never tried to force our ideas and we always deferred to the bishop’s decisions when they did go against us but I suspect we went too far at times. This realization came when I was a social and talking to the Elder’s Quorum President and he joked that me and the secretary actually ran the ward. I laughed but the thought stuck with me. I talked with the secretary and we decided to back off a little. I was still the Handbook guru and he was still the administrative suggestion and organization guy but the bishop seemed put forward more ideas when we backed off. Some I thought were mediocre but some were downright inspired.

I am currently with a pretty strong willed bishop who has no problem shooting down my ideas so I am back to my old self. I like it better this way. I like playing hard ball in the meetings. We are always polite and courteous but everyone is willing to point out flaws in plans and are not hesitant to say what they think even if it would cause problems if said outside of that room. I hear the apostles play hardball so I like to do the same in meetings.

Anyways, sorry for the derail for those who were bored by it. I am a church organization and government nerd and these technicalities  and the way consensus is reached have always interested me. There are two presidencies in my ward that have fascinating personality dynamics and I have always wanted to go to one of their Presidency meetings to see how they work. Maybe I can make up an excuse about their budget or something.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

They clearly offer some benefit....

They are a good excuse for men who want to wear jewelry on their wrists, but find bracelets too feminine.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Has this type of power misappropriation problem affected someone around you?

A possible misappropriation....whether it was actually or just was communicated poorly, I don't know.  Nor do I know much history about it, his calling made a splash in the papers and various online communities, but I don't remember seeing any followup.  

There have been a few nontraditional believers I have come across who have publicly represented their position as executive secretary as one of leadership and teaching doctrine to a certain extent, but the only name I can remember is Mitch Mayne, who talked about how his ES calling in a San Francisco was to help bring inactive gay and other members back and other things that either explicitly or implicitly had him being a ward leader/teacher including having him a significant influence on the bishop iirc.  I don't know how it worked in reality, but it was presented in various interviews,  articles, and commentary I encountered as if it was a major event for an openly gay man (who had formerly been in a SS relationship and was open to it happening again) to be part of a bishopric where it seemed to present the calling of executive secretary to be pretty much a third bishopric counselor.

PS:  I see a possible misappropriation not because he was openly gay or the subject he was inclined to instruct others about, etc, but rather because he seemed to see his primary calling was to educate the bishop and others on how things should be done.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

To be honest I’ve never observed a clerk with a strong enough personality to dominate anything. Not that it couldn’t happen.  Generally strong personalities tend to get utilized where that quality is needed, in my neck of the woods. 

i suppose if a clerk were to give advice(for example) to a ward member and the ward member felt as though the position of clerk gave the advice weight then that’s on the unfortunate fool who gave too much credence to the power of clerk. 

Has this type of power misappropriation problem affected someone around you? I mean IMO it’s one of those “I suppose that’s possible”- I don’t know of any situation in my life where someone has perceived that the clerk receives holy revelation for the ward or has influence other than to instruct in financial policy or procedure or record info. 

Positions get passed around in the Church — we all know that — and it’s not at all unreasonable to suppose that from time to time one with a strong personality will end up occupying one of the ancillary positions that exist to support the bishopric. 

But at any rate, a good organizational structure is one that anticipates most eventualities, unlikely or uncommon though they might be, and, if need be, controls against undesirable conditions. So there is nothing wrong with and nothing inconsequential about seeing to it that it is widely understood what constitutes a bishopric and who holds positions of ecclesiastical leadership over the ward and its members. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

A possible misappropriation....whether it was actually or just was communicated poorly, I don't know.  Nor do I know much history about it, his calling made a splash in the papers and various online communities, but I don't remember seeing any followup.  

There have been a few nontraditional believers I have come across who have publicly represented their position as executive secretary as one of leadership and teaching doctrine to a certain extent, but the only name I can remember is Mitch Mayne, who talked about how his ES calling in a San Francisco was to help bring inactive gay and other members back and other things that either explicitly or implicitly had him being a ward leader/teacher including having him a significant influence on the bishop iirc.  I don't know how it worked in reality, but it was presented in various interviews,  articles, and commentary I encountered as if it was a major event for an openly gay man (who had formerly been in a SS relationship and was open to it happening again) to be part of a bishopric where it seemed to present the calling of executive secretary to be pretty much a third bishopric counselor.

PS:  I see a possible misappropriation not because he was openly gay or the subject he was inclined to instruct others about, etc, but rather because he seemed to see his primary calling was to educate the bishop and others on how things should be done.

Mitch Mayne was only in the position for about two years. He says he was released when the bishop moved out of the ward and the bishopric was dissolved, although, as was indicated in the CH1 quote that The Nehor provided, it is not required that the executive secretary and clerks be released when the bishopric is. 

Mayne is very much a self promoter and is still erroneously billing himself on his website as the first openly gay member of a bishopric. As I see it he tried to use the calling to give himself a national platform and prominence. I find that very off-putting. To the extent he succeeded in that, he was enabled by this rather common misconception that the ward executive secretary is a member of the bishopric. 

There’s nothing special about being ward executive secretary. Any man who meets the worthiness standards and has at least minimum competence can do it. I have served in the calling twice. But I never in either instance regarded myself as a member of the bishopric. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is usually more subtle then that. No one thinks the clerk is in charge or getting revelation for the ward (though they can to a degree because one of their jobs is to counsel the bishop who can follow though on it). The closest I ever came was another ward serving as clerk. The ward secretary and I both had strong but not forceful personalities. The bishop was an older agreeable guy. He loved the ward and the ward adored him. On the night we did interviews the bishop would do the interviews and the secretary and I would be out in the hall or in the clerk’s office and we would talk and come up with plans and ideas for the ward. After the Bishop was done we would often talk with the bishop for an hour afterwards and tell him what we came up with and he pretty much always went along with it and it was stuff that specifically did not have to do with our callings and responsibilities. Things like leadership meeting schedules, who should be the next Relief Society President, Fifth Sunday ideas, and things of that nature.

We never tried to force our ideas and we always deferred to the bishop’s decisions when they did go against us but I suspect we went too far at times. This realization came when I was a social and talking to the Elder’s Quorum President and he joked that me and the secretary actually ran the ward. I laughed but the thought stuck with me. I talked with the secretary and we decided to back off a little. I was still the Handbook guru and he was still the administrative suggestion and organization guy but the bishop seemed put forward more ideas when we backed off. Some I thought were mediocre but some were downright inspired.

I am currently with a pretty strong willed bishop who has no problem shooting down my ideas so I am back to my old self. I like it better this way. I like playing hard ball in the meetings. We are always polite and courteous but everyone is willing to point out flaws in plans and are not hesitant to say what they think even if it would cause problems if said outside of that room. I hear the apostles play hardball so I like to do the same in meetings.

Anyways, sorry for the derail for those who were bored by it. I am a church organization and government nerd and these technicalities  and the way consensus is reached have always interested me. There are two presidencies in my ward that have fascinating personality dynamics and I have always wanted to go to one of their Presidency meetings to see how they work. Maybe I can make up an excuse about their budget or something.

The executive secretary and ward clerk are entitled to counsel the bishop in the sense that any other member of the ward council is entitled to do so. 

The ward council includes the elders quorum president and the male and female presidents of the auxiliaries in the ward. Nobody thinks that <they> are part of the bishopric. 

I appreciate you giving your knowledge and experience here. I especially thank you for providing that quote from CH1 that explicitly states that the executive secretary and clerk are not members of the bishopric. I searched frantically for that quote and was beginning to despair when I saw you had posted it. 

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Mitch Mayne was only in the position for about two years. He says he was released when the bishop moved out of the ward and the bishopric was dissolved, although, as was indicated in the CH1 quote that The Nehor provided, it is not required that the executive secretary and clerks be released when the bishopric is. 

Mayne is very much a self promoter and is still erroneously billing himself on his website as the first openly gay member of a bishopric. As I see it he tried to use the calling to give himself a national platform and prominence. I find that very off-putting. To the extent he succeeded in that, he was enabled by this rather common misconception that the ward executive secretary is a member of the bishopric. 

There’s nothing special about being ward executive secretary. Any man who meets the worthiness standards and has at least minimum competence can do it. I have served in the calling twice. But I never in either instance regarded myself as a member of the bishopric. 

There’s nothing special about any calling.  We are all just nobodies, serving each other and the Lord. 

Hopefully you participated in a meaningful way with your team of bishop and counselors, executing all the business needs of your ward in harmony with the brothers.  This is a semantics discussion, that’s all. IMO.