Sunday second-hour meetings are to open with a prayer

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will only add that if instruction is contained in the Church Handbook, as this has (see the link in the OP), I earnestly believe that it carries the implied assent of the Church leadership as a body. 

I've always taken what is written in the handbook as meaning this is how the First Presidency would like things done.

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Interesting this topic came up just now. Saturday I had a long talk with our stake president (a member of our ward) about it. He came over to our house to give us a gift from him and his wife. We have been through three bishops in the six years we have been in the ward. During the time of our first two bishops (five + of the years), we each were asked to pray to open or close meetings. We each have given sacrament talks, testimonies, and have substitute served as teachers in adult Sunday School (Gospel Doctrine). I have read the Christmas story and prayed at several Christmas celebrations in our ward. I have done several firesides on historical matters and have presented to lots of LDS groups who have come here to visit historical sites and to gather historical information. I was told that such decisions were a matter for local discretion.

It appears that our new bishop is exercising his local discretion and  will not allow us to participate in any of the services of the ward except to sing in the church choir. I am not sure whether we can still clean or not. 🙄I find this disconcerting because of my understanding of gifts given by the Holy Spirit and the use of those gifts in the New Testament Church. My understanding is that God provides folks to a church with particular gifts for the ministry of the church, both internally and externally. It is how He provides for the building up of the church. The concept of members only ministering is unknown in the New Testament (as far as I know). Growing up Mennonite I am actually quite gifted with a vacuum cleaner.

I also was a pastor. If God brought someone to our church who had specific gifts in ministry, I would have jumped at the opportunity to use them as soon as I was comfortable with their spiritual maturity. Membership in the congregation or not would have been irrelevant. I had professors of Biblical Studies in my congregation. They were of a completely different denomination. You can be sure I used them to teach. Their own personal belief in a mode or means of baptism was irrelevant when teaching through Amos.

Ecumenism is an interesting topic. I once asked a Catholic priest if I could deliver the homily at Mass….well, no I didn’t. 😉

I see your point, and it must be disappointing, but this may be a good reason why we have a uniform system with which leaders should be familiar and compliant…to avoid such disappointments.😔

Now you will need to be baptized and then you can do everything.  😉

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It appears that our new bishop is exercising his local discretion and  will not allow us to participate in any of the services of the ward except to sing in the church choir. 

If the bishop is following the Church Handbook, as he is expected to do, being a bishop, then it is not a matter of local discretion, notwithstanding what you may have been told in the past. 

[MiserereNobis]

Ya know, the solution to this is that y’all worldwide need to pray in Latin: it would be the same for all language speakers and it does have the intimate pronoun 😉

My personal prayers are most definitely in English, and I use the pronoun you, but I do very much enjoy using Latin for formalized prayers. It feels sacred, in the sense that this is a language that is for me reserved almost exclusively for spiritual practice.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I've always taken what is written in the handbook as meaning this is how the First Presidency would like things done.

Yes. I think it would be highly irregular (as in “never happens”) for something to slip into the handbook without first having undergone First Presidency scrutiny. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Ya know, the solution to this is that y’all worldwide need to pray in Latin: it would be the same for all language speakers and it does have the intimate pronoun 😉

My personal prayers are most definitely in English, and I use the pronoun you, but I do very much enjoy using Latin for formalized prayers. It feels sacred, in the sense that this is a language that is for me reserved almost exclusively for spiritual practice.

That’s actually a very good analogy. The prescribed language of prayer in our Church carries with it a sense of the sacred, as Latin does for you, and that is why the Church leadership over many years has directed that we apply it. 

[maj]

20 hours ago, rchorse said:

This is one thing that I wish would change. It just makes prayer feel stiff and awkward rather than speaking with a Father. In every other language I am aware of, members use the familiar form of address (tu in spanish, du in german, for example), which is what one normally uses when speaking to friends and family. I know thee, thou, etc. are technically the familiar forms in English, as well. But they're so archaic that I'm not sure it's really accomplishing the goals.

Just out of interest, I'm from Wales and in Welsh we would use the more formal pronouns in prayer.

 

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ya know, the solution to this is that y’all worldwide need to pray in Latin: it would be the same for all language speakers and it does have the intimate pronoun 😉

My personal prayers are most definitely in English, and I use the pronoun you, but I do very much enjoy using Latin for formalized prayers. It feels sacred, in the sense that this is a language that is for me reserved almost exclusively for spiritual practice.

Why Latin? What is wrong with Polish?

Edited December 22, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the bishop is following the Church Handbook, as he is expected to do, being a bishop, then it is not a matter of local discretion, notwithstanding what you may have been told in the past. 

I believe that requires an assumption that if it is not specifically mentioned in the handbook, then it is not allowed. Is that your belief?

I was told by one general authority emeritus that when it is not in the handbook it is because it is not contemplated as likely to happen. That circumstance is then up to the local leader. In other words it might not talk specifically about a faithful non-member because such has never been considered by the leadership. It certainly is not exhaustive, is it?

Does it state only a member can read from the scripture in a Christmas celebration? Does it state that only a member can pray before a meal in the cultural hall? What about a meeting of faithful members who want to learn more about LDS history or their particular forebearers in a locale? What does it say about cleaning? Because it says a non-member can play the organ, does that mean one may not sing a solo? May a non-member read a portion of the lesson in Elder's Quorum? Ask a question? Make a comment? Are any of those covered in the handbook? They may attend, right? But only so long as they sit on their hands, thoughts, and prayers? This may require a new thread - just for dialogue and discussion-sake. I would love to hear the collective thoughts of the folks here. I believe there will be more folks who don't wish to be re-baptized and join but who would love to attend and be active participants in the life of the church. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s actually a very good analogy. The prescribed language of prayer in our Church carries with it a sense of the sacred, as Latin does for you, and that is why the Church leadership over many years has directed that we apply it. 

I once prayed in my normal Mennonite-learned King James English. I was told by a lady that she was so surprised that I prayed so well in "Mormon." She then added to her compliment that however she wished they wouldn't let non-members pray! Talk about a "go away closer" comment!

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

I believe that requires an assumption that if it is not specifically mentioned in the handbook, then it is not allowed. Is that your belief?

No, it requires no such assumption. This was explicitly mentioned in the handbook, as cited in the link in the OP. Did you see the link? 
 

Follow-up: In reviewing the link in the OP, I realized that it was to an article in the Church News that in turn links to a section in the General Handbook that pertains to calling on persons (baptized members) to give prayers in sacrament meeting. 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/29-meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng

So I did some further exploration and found this content in the handbook that gives guidelines pertaining to callings in the ward:

30.1.3
Callings for Those Who Are Not Members

People who are not members of the Church may be called to some positions, such as organist, music director, or a calling to help plan activities. However, they should not be called as teachers, as quorum or organization presidency members, or as Primary music leaders.

“A person whose membership has been formally restricted or has been withdrawn may not have a calling (see 32.11.3 and 32.11.4).”

Here’s a link:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/30-callings-in-the-church?lang=eng
 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I once prayed in my normal Mennonite-learned King James English. I was told by a lady that she was so surprised that I prayed so well in "Mormon." She then added to her compliment that however she wished they wouldn't let non-members pray! Talk about a "go away closer" comment!

That was a very thoughtless and inconsiderate remark on her part.  But the handbook content is what it is, and the bishop does not deserve censure for doing what he is expected to do. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

I am getting tired of these pronoun wars.  😜

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why Latin? What is wrong with Polish?

Polish is a living language which means:

1) the experience of praying for Polish and non-Polish speakers would differ, and

 2) the meaning and use of words changes over time. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/22/2022 at 1:36 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Polish is a living language which means:

1) the experience of praying for Polish and non-Polish speakers would differ, and

 2) the meaning and use of words changes over time. 

I’m sure Bernard was being facetious. But you make some very good points about the utility of a so-called “dead” language. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Polish is a living language which means:

1) the experience of praying for Polish and non-Polish speakers would differ, and

 2) the meaning and use of words changes over time. 

But…….John Paul……..😇

Poland is the most Catholic country in the world, no?

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I was told by one general authority emeritus that when it is not in the handbook it is because it is not contemplated as likely to happen.

My observation is that something happened therefore it’s in the Handbook. 

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My private and public prayers are two completely different things in most cases. For example, when I prayed at the funeral this week, I wasn't praying for or as myself; instead, I was praying on behalf of all the people in the chapel.

In contrast, when I pray with my EQ counsellors on an issue we have all just discussed, I tend to pray more as myself, though still with a collective element to it. Does that make any sense?

The nature of collective prayer was really impressed upon me during my time serving in the temple. On so many occasions as an officiator, I found myself having specific things to say in the prayer dictated directly to me ... because God clearly knew what was needed, and I had no idea. On many occasions, a patron thanked me afterwards for specifically mentioning what he was in the temple seeking that day.

It's not that I have a problem understanding the purpose to communal prayer. I just don't enjoy the experience of having to give it. I'd rather give talks or lessons or just about any other form of participation BUT give a public prayer. It's like fasting for me...I can get the purpose but personally struggle with it because I don't do well with not eating. This one's more to do with language and that the difference between who I must be in front of people and how I come to God is a little too wide to feel comfortable/natural with. In all other forms of public communion, I can still be much myself. In fact when I've given lessons and talks they usually go pretty well because I'm myself.  Public prayer, particularly outside my family, gets more stiff for me and self-conscious when I do it. This isn't all the time, just most. There's been a few occasions where I did feel comfortable....usually at the end of a good lesson or when I've had time to think through what i'd want to say. 

Basically knowing reasons for it, doesn't change my lived experience of it. 

 

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ya know, the solution to this is that y’all worldwide need to pray in Latin: it would be the same for all language speakers and it does have the intimate pronoun 😉

My personal prayers are most definitely in English, and I use the pronoun you, but I do very much enjoy using Latin for formalized prayers. It feels sacred, in the sense that this is a language that is for me reserved almost exclusively for spiritual practice.

Same concept though. Stuff that was used because it was the common tongue becomes quasi-sacred because it is no longer used anymore.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/21/2022 at 2:02 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Hey @Navidad, am I remembering correctly that you and/or your wife have prayed in LDS church meetings? I'm curious what you (as someone who attends) and our LDS friends think of this rule.

Agree; it has always been a rule and non members are not to teach lessons, or speak in Sac. Meetings iirc.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree; it has always been a rule and non members are not to teach lessons, or speak in Sac. Meetings iirc.

The members are probably trying things to get them to join, they like them so much. My brother-in-law, sister's husband is Catholic and my husband's family fell in love with him and said he'd make the best Mormon. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Tacenda

[Eschaton]

On 12/22/2022 at 7:12 PM, The Nehor said:

Same concept though. Stuff that was used because it was the common tongue becomes quasi-sacred because it is no longer used anymore.

Latin is also the go-to language for magical incantations in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Supernatural. 

In a thousand years people will be using Canadian English for their fictional magical incantations.

Quote

This week, on Glorbnob the Demon Hunter: "I command you ancient demon Joey, take off ya hoser!" 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The members are probably trying things to get them to join, they like them so much. My brother-in-law, sister's husband is Catholic and my husband's family fell in love with him and said he'd make the best Mormon. 

Yes, I agree, Navidad seems to be a wonderful person, but honestly he does not understand our Doctrine perfectly, and indeed that is why he comes here.  He is always seeking new sources for more info, which is admirable!  But he is highly educated and others may not be.

If the ward is doing the same things with other non-members, there is a chance that some non-doctrinal teaching could get started, and these sincere investigators might be mis-taught, and subsequently led astray

I am just projecting the possible problems of allowing this to continue, if I was a leader of the ward, or stake, high council, etc.

I have seen things like this happening when new converts for example, are put into teaching positions. You could end up with a whole new hybrid religion! 

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, I agree, Navidad seems to be a wonderful person, but honestly he does not understand our Doctrine perfectly, and indeed that is why he comes here.  He is always seeking new sources for more info, which is admirable!  But he is highly educated and others may not be.

If the ward is doing the same things with other non-members, there is a chance that some non-doctrinal teaching could get started, and these sincere investigators might be mis-taught, and subsequently led astray

I am just projecting the possible problems of allowing this to continue, if I was a leader of the ward, or stake, high council, etc.

I have seen things like this happening when new converts for example, are put into teaching positions. You could end up with a whole new hybrid religion! 

 

Thanks so much for your kind words. That means a lot to me. We don't have any other non-members in our ward that I know of. I have poured and poured over the handbook - several versions of it in fact. It cannot be exhaustive. I do believe it is a matter of interpretation, especially when the situation is not specifically mentioned. One can suggest that then it is ok to do; while another suggests that means it is forbidden to do. I am going to start a new thread just to see what folks think.

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree; it has always been a rule and non members are not to teach lessons, or speak in Sac. Meetings iirc.

There can be exceptions. In a ward I was in a non-member's son, who was a member, had died and the father wanted to address the ward and thank them for their kind assistance in helping him through the medical condition. The Bishop allowed him to speak in sacrament meeting. It was one of those few talks that I still remember.