Women leaders ordered off the stand

[Teancum]

On 11/25/2023 at 6:24 PM, JAHS said:

President Dalin Oaks, a prophet of God, said “The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “The Keys and Authority of the) Priesthood,” Liahona, May 2014, 51.

D&C 1: 38 "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So what President Oaks said is as good as scripture for now, until God tells us differently.

And then you can just forget everything any prior leader ever said about women and the priesthood.

[Teancum]

On 11/25/2023 at 6:34 PM, JLHPROF said:

I think it will.

But it will be our societal culture that brings it about.  God won't alter his pattern.

So you think it is God's pattern to deny women the priesthood but the LDS leaders will capitulate due to pressure?  Is this how you feel about the other priesthood ban?

[Amulek]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

So have the person conducting up front.  Have the person presiding if different acknowledged at the beginning and in the program so people are aware and let him sit with his family.

I suppose you could do that. I just think it's far more practical to have the presiding authority be present on the stand for all of the times he may need to intervene in the meeting.

Say, for example, you have got someone who messes up the sacrament prayer repeatedly. Having the presiding authority on the stand makes it convenient for him to signal that it needs to be re-done and, if necessary, to walk over and quickly provide instruction.

Or when you have someone during Fast & Testimony meeting who needs to be encouraged to wrap things up. When I was a counselor we had that happen on multiple occasions, and I found that my personal tolerance for when they should have been asked to shut things down was markedly less than the presiding authority's (probably one of the many reasons why I'm not cut out to be a bishop). Again, having the bishop be feet away - as opposed to in the congregation - seems much more practical.

Need to change the closing song or adjust the number of verses being sung? Again, easier to lean over and whisper to the organist/conductor than to try and relay that via text or sign language to the person conducting the meeting.

 

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

You forgot one, the man has to have the sacrament first where all can see... 

That one is also a tradition - one that may have actually had some sexist undertones when it was first implemented - but it's not a tradition that is required by doctrine.

That being said, there are some pragmatic benefits of doing it that way - primarily, being able to quickly put a stop to the sacrament from being distributed to the congregation should the person who offered the prayer not notice that it needs to be re-done.

 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That one is also a tradition - one that may have actually had some sexist undertones when it was first implemented - but it's not a tradition that is required by doctrine.

That being said, there are some pragmatic benefits of doing it that way - primarily, being able to quickly put a stop to the sacrament from being distributed to the congregation should the person who offered the prayer not notice that it needs to be re-done.

The prayers are always corrected before a single tray is passed from the teacher or priest who is blessing to the deacons who are passing, so it wouldn't make a difference who gets the sacrament first.  

But I wouldn't want to mess with ol' Chesterton's fence, despite the undertones.  

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

The point of Chesterton’s fence is to know why something was done the way it was in the first place so as not to make things worse by removing it. Do we know the original purpose of all Bishopric members sitting on the stand? Were things ever done differently? If so, why the change?  

I think it has roots in the way Jesus taught. Jesus taught in a synagogue, where men (on the floor) and women (in balconies or raised galleries) sat separately facing the rabbis in front. Rabbis led the meeting from the bimah, an elevated platform in front of the Torah ark that faced the congregation. There were seats for other officers as well on this stand. The congregation faced them, or in the general direction of Jerusalem, symbolic of the coming Messiah and in remembrance of Har Sinai. Orators and cantors performed their functions here in front also, often with a desk facing either the congregation or the ark. It seems our placement of the “rabbi analog” (bishopric) in front seems to be both practical for leading the congregation and, symbolic (which is also a practical matter; impractical symbols are useless!) in recognition of the presence of the Lord (Coming Messiah, Mount Sinai) through those chosen to administer His covenants to His people.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Having a few dozen "presidents" and their counselors sit on the stand rather than with their families, where they have no business to present to the ward, nor authority to preside or conduct, makes no sense.  

Thanks,

Smac

I am saying if the idea is to have the bishopric sitting on the stand to show the coherency of the leadership organization of the Church, then it makes even more sense to have other examples of the Church’s organizational hierarchy, etc. present as a visible reminder/expression of it.  Having a very small percentage present does not demonstrate organizational structure hardly at all.

As far as the rest, did you not read what I wrote?  Please respond to that version rather than a version I already dismissed as impractical.

And if not having any business to present, conduct or preside, why are the bishop’s counselors on the stand when he is presiding or the third man when the other two are one presiding and the other conducting?

Edited November 27, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am saying if the idea is to have the bishopric sitting on the stand to show the coherency of the leadership organization of the Church, then it makes even more sense to have other examples of the Church’s organizational hierarchy, etc. present as a visible reminder/expression of it.  Having a very small percentage present does not demonstrate organizational structure hardly at all.

As far as the rest, did you not read what I wrote?  Please respond to that version rather than a version I already dismissed as impractical.

And if not having any business to present, conduct or preside, why is the bishop’s counselors on the stand when he is presiding or the third man when the other two are one presiding and the other conducting?

And I really wonder if the RS presidency wants to even sit there. I think it should be offered to them but not a requirement like the bishopric. Or each ward have their choice. Shouldn't be a big deal, but not take away the bishopric sitting there. I believe there is a lot business they need to take care of.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it has roots in the way Jesus taught. 

Where did Jesus sit when he wasn't teaching?  Front and center?  Did he mostly just sit there up above everyone to be seen. 

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There were seats for other officers as well on this stand.

Notably lacking in our church.  In fact, disallowed. 

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The congregation faced them, or in the general direction of Jerusalem, symbolic of the coming Messiah and in remembrance of Har Sinai.

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Orators and cantors performed their functions here in front also, often with a desk facing either the congregation or the ark. It seems our placement of the “rabbi analog” (bishopric) in front seems to be both practical for leading the congregation and, symbolic (which is also a practical matter; impractical symbols are useless!) in recognition of the presence of the Lord (Coming Messiah, Mount Sinai) through those chosen to administer His covenants to His people.

I don't think that is the origins of why we do it.  I doubt that they really understood the intricacies of Jewish congregations when they made the decision to place the bishopric on the stand.  At least, that is not a symbol we teach and is not in our history books being taught that way. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I suppose you could do that. I just think it's far more practical to have the presiding authority be present on the stand for all of the times he may need to intervene in the meeting.

Say, for example, you have got someone who messes up the sacrament prayer repeatedly. Having the presiding authority on the stand makes it convenient for him to signal that it needs to be re-done and, if necessary, to walk over and quickly provide instruction.

Or when you have someone during Fast & Testimony meeting who needs to be encouraged to wrap things up. When I was a counselor we had that happen on multiple occasions, and I found that my personal tolerance for when they should have been asked to shut things down was markedly less than the presiding authority's (probably one of the many reasons why I'm not cut out to be a bishop). Again, having the bishop be feet away - as opposed to in the congregation - seems much more practical.

Need to change the closing song or adjust the number of verses being sung? Again, easier to lean over and whisper to the organist/conductor than to try and relay that via text or sign language to the person conducting the meeting.

 

That does make sense if this is a duty that can’t be delegated to the one conducting.  Having two on the stand at most then, one when the presider is also conducting.

[InCognitus]

I don't understand all the fuss.  This whole controversy seems to assign some kind of superficial superiority to being seen up on the stand.  I see no point of having anyone sitting on the stand other than the minimal leadership and related roles (organist / chorister) needed to run the meeting.  That way everyone else could sit with their families.  Those who are fighting to sit on the stand need to grow up, or just wait until the next Primary program where they can sit on the stand with the kids of their own mental age.

Edited November 27, 2023 by InCognitus

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I really wonder if the RS presidency wants to even sit there. I think it should be offered to them but not a requirement like the bishopric. Or each ward have their choice. Shouldn't be a big deal, but not take away the bishopric sitting there. I believe there is a lot business they need to take care of.

I for one would greatly dislike doing it, but I did it when it was part of my calling before and my guess is most see it that way and would quickly get used to it.  It might even help some get more comfortable with public speaking so teaching or giving a talk becomes easier over time.

I personally think each of the auxiliaries’ presidencies should take turns sitting on the stand to make the organization of the Church more visible for everyone because they are serving the ward, not just those who are their stewardship and I think it benefits people to know who to ask and who to thank God for fulfilling their callings.  Expressions of gratitude, whether in one’s heart or spoken can create greater bonds, another benefit for unity.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This whole controversy seems to assert some kind of superficial superiority to being seen up on the stand

It may be that way in the article, maybe not though given how articles tend to just include a small portion of a position and often the best soundbite, not the most important point.

Also I think very few of those proposing some variation of leadership sitting on the stand in this thread see sitting on the stand as a superior position, it is about being visible and what that means…and it’s not superiority in my version or Pogi’s if I understand his position correctly or Smac’s as I understand his, Amulek’s also appears to be about practicality…can’t remember others’ versions, sorry.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Calm

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

it is about being visible and what that means

Yes, I do recall your post of wanting to know the individuals called to leadership roles in the various organizations.  I understand why that would be helpful, but I think having them on the stand also takes them away from their families, and there may be other ways of letting people know who they are (although other than the ward tools photo that has been suggested, I'm not sure what else would work).

I was directing my comment toward the controversy in the article.

Edited November 27, 2023 by InCognitus

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

but I think having them on the stand also takes them away from their families, and there may be other ways of letting people know who they are…

Which is why rotating through all the auxiliaries is useful….it would be about two months out of a year.

I have been in a lot of wards trying a lot of things, only two worked as far as I could tell.  Lots of ward activities (especially service projects, I would have a monthly service project if I was in charge, lol) where different leaders are running them and having leaders on the stand during sacrament meeting.  The ward activities are much fewer than they used to be, though my current ward has a couple of families who do a weekly party for a month or two in the summer (they have a pool) and another does a once a month.  But that only works if your ward is the size of a couple of blocks.  And it’s not a ward activity, so far fewer show up.  

 The bonding that comes from seeing actual living breathing people does not come from photos.  Photos are excellent if the connection is already there as memories are refreshed.  Otherwise for many, it can be a struggle to connect a flat immobile thing with an actual person.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Calm

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

The other, and perhaps better option, is to have the bishopric sit in the pews with their families where they would likely prefer to be anyway.    There, problem solved.  Equality.

Does anyone need to be placed on the "pedestal"?

It’s not a pedestal if it has a purpose. In our RS room the presidency sits in chairs at the pulpit facing the group. They do so because they’re presiding and directing the meeting. Same thing with bishoprics and sacrament meeting.

I think there’d less concern with RS presidents on the stand if they had a reason other than to be seen. Someone mentioned here that it gives the president a chance to watch for sisters who need support. That seems like stretch to me.  But my main point is that sisters should be at the head of this discussion. 

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where did Jesus sit when he wasn't teaching?  Front and center?  Did he mostly just sit there up above everyone to be seen. 

Notably lacking in our church.  In fact, disallowed. 

I don't think that is the origins of why we do it.  I doubt that they really understood the intricacies of Jewish congregations when they made the decision to place the bishopric on the stand.  At least, that is not a symbol we teach and is not in our history books being taught that way. 

The origins are not necessarily found in adherence to an observed tradition (as you point out, many modern Christians do not realize or acknowledge their roots in Jewish religion and tradition), but in the common human sensibilities and attitudes expressed toward God along the continuum of Judeo-Christian worship and practices from at Moses onward. Jesus evidently found the format of leaders-up-front acceptable, so would find ours just as acceptable in light of the many parallels that existed for the pious Jews, among whom were His original and first converts. 

Around 300 AD early Christians moved from gathering around a table in a "house church," mirroring the setting for the Last Supper, often with the fellowship or communal meal, to larger and more formal settings. Even these house churches were more formal than we might imagine. Note the location of the congregation, how they face, the priests and where they sit, etc. in this articel: The Ancient Mass in “House Churches” Was Not as Informal as Many Think - Catholic Standard - Multimedia Catholic News (cathstan.org) It looks and acts a lot like a synagogue. 

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Bro. Ahmad S. Corbitt's remarks about the caustic effects of "activism" in the Church come to mind.

We’ll have to differ here. I counseled in my prior post that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about the area authority’s motives. The same counsel applies to the local authorities and sisters. I see no reason to assume they are insincere or activists. It’s very reasonable that some sisters feel benefited by a female leader’s presence on the stand and others disapprove. That doesn’t make either group activists. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It’s not a pedestal if it has a purpose. In our RS room the presidency sits in chairs at the pulpit facing the group. They do so because they’re presiding and directing the meeting. Same thing with bishoprics and sacrament meeting.

I think there’d less concern with RS presidents on the stand if they had a reason other than to be seen. Someone mentioned here that it gives the president a chance to watch for sisters who need support. That seems like stretch to me.  But my main point is that sisters should be at the head of this discussion. 

Our RS presidencies doesn't do that and hasn't for years.  I can't decide if I miss that or like how it is now better.

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Our RS presidencies doesn't do that and hasn't for years.  I can't decide if I miss that or like how it is now better.

I personally like the ‘knights of the round table’ approach but that also is a bit sad because it usually means the quorum isn’t very large. 

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is why rotating through all the auxiliaries is useful….it would be about two months out of a year.

I have been in a lot of wards trying a lot of things, only two worked as far as I could tell.  Lots of ward activities where different leaders are running them and having leaders on the stand during sacrament meeting.  The ward activities are much fewer than they used to be, though my current ward has a couple of families who do a weekly party for a month or two in the summer (they have a pool) and another does a once a month.  But that only works if your ward is the site of a couple of blocks.

 The bonding that comes from seeing actual living breathing people does not come from photos.  Photos are excellent if the connection is already there as memories are refreshed.  Otherwise for many, it can be a struggle to connect a flat immobile thing with an actual person.

I think the "recognition" part of a sacrament meeting is focused on a sacred, reverent setting for God: the congregation recognizes they are led first and foremost through those chosen to administer His covenants. We have other settings in which to introduce, be conscious of, admire and appreciate the other kinds of presidents that do not deliver us the sacrament and other ordinances and covenants.

General Conference has a lot of presidencies on the stand, in my opinion symbolic of being sustained by the Church, but it is hardly a sacrament meeting.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

To what point and purpose?  Again, if you want to tear down Chesterton's Fence, you should explain why it should be torn down.  What's the rationale?

Thanks,

-Smac

To allow those who have no purpose to perform during the meeting to be with their families as much as possible.  Since we lost the third hour for that purpose, it seems an important purpose in the Church.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We have other settings in which to introduce, be conscious of, admire and appreciate the other kinds of presidents

Like what?  When does a Primary teacher or child for that matter have a chance to see a YM’s presidency?

Edited November 28, 2023 by Calm

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am saying if the idea is to have the bishopric sitting on the stand to show the coherency of the leadership organization of the Church, then it makes even more sense to have other examples of the Church’s organizational hierarchy, etc. present as a visible reminder/expression of it.  Having a very small percentage present does not demonstrate organizational structure hardly at all.

As far as the rest, did you not read what I wrote?  Please respond to that version rather than a version I already dismissed as impractical.

And if not having any business to present, conduct or preside, why are the bishop’s counselors on the stand when he is presiding or the third man when the other two are one presiding and the other conducting?

FWIW, my understanding of why the entire bishopric sits on the stand is to provide direct/symbolic support to presiding authority. Kind of like when Moses’ arms were held up by Aaron and Hur. That’s why if two members of the bishopric are absent, the EQP or next ranking priesthood holder is supposed to sit on the stand. It could also be seen as a ‘law of two witnesses’ or just so a single guy isn’t lonely, but moreso a sense that the president needs backup. As shown by the OP, sometimes the president makes decisions that ruffle feathers. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Buckeye

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I suppose you could do that. I just think it's far more practical to have the presiding authority be present on the stand for all of the times he may need to intervene in the meeting.

If this can be delegated when the bishop is not present why can't it be delegated when the presiding authority is in the audience? Since I know about how President Monson used to sit with his wife when she was present (I knew someone in his ward) I know it can be done. I just don't know why it's not done more often. 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Say, for example, you have got someone who messes up the sacrament prayer repeatedly. Having the presiding authority on the stand makes it convenient for him to signal that it needs to be re-done and, if necessary, to walk over and quickly provide instruction.

Or when you have someone during Fast & Testimony meeting who needs to be encouraged to wrap things up. When I was a counselor we had that happen on multiple occasions, and I found that my personal tolerance for when they should have been asked to shut things down was markedly less than the presiding authority's (probably one of the many reasons why I'm not cut out to be a bishop). Again, having the bishop be feet away - as opposed to in the congregation - seems much more practical.

Need to change the closing song or adjust the number of verses being sung? Again, easier to lean over and whisper to the organist/conductor than to try and relay that via text or sign language to the person conducting the meeting.