Women leaders ordered off the stand

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Does a Mass include giving a sermon or readings?  How was that done so people could hear?  And surely they must have been facing each other when members came forward to receive the Eucharist?

Having a hard time visualizing this. Do you have a link that shows a service done in this way?

I’m wondering the same things. 

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

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?

Delegating someone to preside when the presiding authority is absent seems different than delegating someone to preside when the presiding authority is, in fact, present.

Not saying it can't be done, but it seems like a rather confusing practice. But maybe that's just me. I see a benefit in having a clearly defined chain of command which outweighs the benefit of being able to sit with your family a bit more often.

 

Quote

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. 

I think that's kind of an exception to the rule. I strongly suspect that everyone in President Monson's ward was keenly aware of who he was and his position in the church.

Bishop so-and-so from the Normal, IL 3rd ward? Not so much. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Does a Mass include giving a sermon or readings?  How was that done so people could hear?  And surely they must have been facing each other when members came forward to receive the Eucharist?

Having a hard time visualizing this. Do you have a link that shows a service done in this way?

Hey Calm.

There is a sermon and readings. The priest does face the people for this. The focus, however, is always on the altar and the ritual. For example, the sermon may last 15 minutes out of an 1+ hour long mass. The sermon is giving from a lectern on the side. When the priest, deacons, and altar boys are not actively involved in the Mass, they sit on chairs that are facing sideways. This happens during the sermon and during parts of the Mass when they are finished with their activities at the altar but the Gregorian chant has not yet finished.

Here's a picture I found with a quick google search. It is a requiem (funeral) mass. I don't mean to be morbid, but it was an easy image to find to show what I'm talking about:

The priest also faces the people when they are receiving communion. They kneel and he and a deacon or altar boy go side to side placing it on the people's tongues. Here's an example:

For the rest of the Mass, the priest is facing the altar. Here is a picture taking from the pews at the time of the consecration:

Edited November 28, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Durangout]

On 11/25/2023 at 10:43 AM, Diamondhands69 said:

Why does anyone even care about being up on the stand anyway? All it means is you have more headaches at church (and during the week) than the commoner member. 

They are pushing for women’s ordination to the priesthood—obviously.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey Calm.

There is a sermon and readings. The priest does face the people for this. The focus, however, is always on the altar and the ritual. For example, the sermon may last 15 minutes out of an 1+ hour long mass. The sermon is giving from a lectern on the side. When the priest, deacons, and altar boys are not actively involved in the Mass, they sit on chairs that are facing sideways. This happens during the sermon and during parts of the Mass when they are finished with their activities at the altar but the Gregorian chant has not yet finished.

Here's a picture I found with a quick google search. It is a requiem (funeral) mass. I don't mean to be morbid, but it was an easy image to find to show what I'm talking about:

The priest also faces the people when they are receiving communion. They kneel and he and a deacon or altar boy go side to side placing it on the people's tongues. Here's an example:

For the rest of the Mass, the priest is facing the altar. Here is a picture taking from the pews at the time of the consecration:

I'm so glad I got to experience things outside of my own church life. My sister married a Catholic and I experienced my niece's wedding in a beautiful place called St. Mary's Hall & School of Religion in Northern California. I also experienced two Catholic funerals for my brother in law's parents. And in my dating years I dated a Catholic and attended his church once. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I believe what you meant to say is that the prayers are almost always corrected before a single tray is distributed. It's an admittedly rare occurrence, but it does happen.

Does it happen frequently enough to justify the practice of passing the sacrament to the presiding authority first? If that were the only reason then I would say no, probably not, but there is a legitimate practical benefit to doing so.

 

I guess I don't understand how it would make a difference. 

[jpv]

On 11/25/2023 at 3:55 PM, Mark Beesley said:

Again, I cited the chapter in response to a query as to why I asserted that the drive towards sameness is not divinely inspired.

As to women being ordained, as I stated earlier, I have nothing against it personally. But, I know that Joseph was the Lord’s prophet of the restoration, and the order of the Church he established by revelation included ordaining only men to the offices of the priesthood.  I also know that President Nelson is called of God to preside over His Church now, and the order established earlier by Joseph continues. Now, whether the reservation of the priesthood to the male membership is a matter of practice or doctrine may be argued, I suppose. But just as it was with the earlier priesthood ban as affecting our members with African heritage, any change needs to come by revelation.  And I am not a fan of seeking to force revelation through activism because of my earlier observation.

Well, the Prophet Joseph also had women give blessings by the laying on of hands, and had some women ordained to the fullness of the priesthood.  

Do you think we should practice those now? 

[smac97]

21 hours 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,

The idea of the bishopric sitting on the stand is to show and establish who is presiding and conducting.  Again, absent a person A) presiding or conducting, or B) having business to present to the congregation, individuals are part of the congregation, and ought to sit with the congregation.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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.  

I respectfully disagree.  None of the "presidents" in the ward organization can "preside" in Sacrament Meeting (apart from the EQP, whom the SP can designate to preside the absence of the Bishopric).  So unless they have business to present to the congregation, they ought to sit with the congregation.

And then there's the logistical headache arising from 20+ "presidents" and their counselors all sitting on the stand every week.  

And then there's the fairly strong whiff of usurpative activism coming off this proposal.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Having a very small percentage present does not demonstrate organizational structure hardly at all.

I think it does.  

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

The dozens taking turns?  Seems like a big waste of time and effort.  And it has no meaningful purpose.  And it seems pretty arbitrary.  And then there's the "usurpative activism" thing.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

Because they they are part of the Bishopric, and because bishopric members typically take turns conducting.

In a courtroom, the court staff - the court clerk, the bailiff, the court reporter (in federal courts) have particularized roles to play court proceedings, and so sit near the judge, facing the attorneys and the gallery.  It would make little sense to have the clerk sit on the judge's bench, or an attorney stand where the bailiff stands, or a litigant setting at the clerk's desk.  Having City Council members and support staff scattered hither and yon, and attendees randomly and arbitrarily invited to sit at the front of the meeting facing the audience, would likewise make little sense.  "Why not?"-style musings about distorting, for no particular purpose, what is presently a practical and sensible layout and structure don't make sense to me.

Again, I am not seeing much interaction with Chesterton's Fence.  

Again, the usurpative activism aspect of this is, to me, bothersome.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2023 by smac97

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I love the analogy and symbolism of that. It’ doesn’t really work for our worship services because if the bishop didn’t face the congregation, he would be facing a few (usually empty) choir seats and the wall (and maybe a piano or organ depending on that building’s set up).

Yes. I think this is a low-church/high-church difference, too, and that from my experience in LDS sacrament meetings most of the time is spent with someone speaking, and it obviously makes sense to have speakers facing the congregation.

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The idea of the bishopric sitting on the stand is to show and establish who is presiding and conducting.  Again, absent a person A) presiding or conducting, or B) having business to present to the congregation, individuals are part of the congregation, and ought to sit with the congregation.

Unless you are a bishop's counselor who is neither presiding nor conducting.  Also, why is it that only the bishopric can conduct? Does one have to hold the priesthood to do that? 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Why not?"-style musings about distorting, for no particular purpose, what is presently a practical and sensible layout and structure don't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to you.   I guess that settles it.  You must not be listening if you think this is being discussed with "no particular purpose".

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not seeing much interaction with Chesterton's Fence.  

It's been discussed. 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the usurpative activism aspect of this is, to me, bothersome.

Usurping what, exactly?

Those darn women usurping equal treatment to pray in conference!  So bothersome!  Leave Chesterton's fence alone!

Edited November 28, 2023 by pogi

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I guess I don't understand how it would make a difference. 

In terms of administrative processes, this one sort of acts as an additional control to help ensure the sacrament is being administered properly, and in a manner that is both efficient and reverent.

When passing the sacrament, it's trivially easy to simply glance up at the stand and see if the sacrament ought to be distributed or if you should return to the sacrament table. Knowing that the presiding authority is being presented with the sacrament first means that, when you see it being distributed on the stand, you know that you are free to distribute it to the whole congregation.

Look, I recognize that the practice of passing the sacrament to the presiding authority is mostly symbolic - it's a small form of recognizing the keys which allow us to have the ordinance be performed in the first place - but it does serve a legitimate, practical purpose as well, helping those who are tasked with administering the ordinance do so in an orderly manner.

 

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, jpv said:

Well, the Prophet Joseph also had women give blessings by the laying on of hands, and had some women ordained to the fullness of the priesthood.  

Do you think we should practice those now? 

Women can and did give blessings but not using the priesthood and they were never ordained to the priesthood. Do you have a reference that says a   particular woman was actually ordained to the Priesthood?

When Joseph Smith said to the Relief Society he was going to "make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day", he was talking about the whole Church and not just the Relief Society.
Joseph Smith had, on other occasions, used the word "Society" when talking about the whole Church.

President John Taylor:
"Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands."  (John Taylor, (8 August 1880) Journal of Discourses 21:367-368)

James E. Talmage:
"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood." (James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord)

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Unless you are a bishop's counselor who is neither presiding nor conducting. 

If you are a counselor who is not presiding or conducting then you are present to support the bishop as you were called to do - whether that be running to get bread because the Teacher's forgot it that week, retrieving the seminary awards bishop mistakenly left on his desk, or trying to fix the video feed so members at home can view the service. There are plenty of times where having both counselors present just makes things run smoother.

 

Quote

Also, why is it that only the bishopric can conduct? Does one have to hold the priesthood to do that? 

Arguably, in D&C 20 where it outlines the duties of the various priesthood offices is says that "elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God." (link)

The handbook also states that "[t]he bishopric plans and conducts Sacrament meeting." (29.2.1.1)

Personally, I think this is one of those practices which I generally characterize as being consistent with (or in harmony with) the scriptures / doctrine, but perhaps not expressly required by the same.

 

[Durangout]

1 hour ago, jpv said:

Well, the Prophet Joseph also had women give blessings by the laying on of hands, and had some women ordained to the fullness of the priesthood.  

Do you think we should practice those now? 

Women did not “give blessings” by the laying on of hands through the authority of the priesthood.  Their husbands did however.  They simply placed their hands on the FAMILY member’s head as an expression of faith in the blessing that was being given through the authority of the priesthood by the husband.

Regarding your comment “had some women ordained to the fullness of the priesthood”  you’d have to provide linked proof of that so that I could see the situation in context to understand what was going on there.  I expect it doesn’t mean what you think it means.  For example when a woman is sealed to her husband, she does enter into the patriarchal order of the priesthood which is the highest order of the priesthood.  I suspect that is to what you are referring.

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

The idea of the bishopric sitting on the stand is to show and establish who is presiding and conducting.  Again, absent a person A) presiding or conducting, or B) having business to present to the congregation, individuals are part of the congregation, and ought to sit with the congregation.

Unless you are a bishop's counselor who is neither presiding nor conducting. 

Sigh.  The lengths to which usurpative activism will go...

What's next?  Should the Conference Center be revamp to remove all the General Authorities and Officers from the stand, except those who are going to speak?

From section 29.2.1.1 of the Handbook:

Quote

29.2.1.1

Planning Sacrament Meeting

The bishopric plans and conducts sacrament meeting. They ensure that the focus of the meeting is on the sacrament and building faith in Jesus Christ.

Sacrament meeting lasts one hour. It can include the following:

1. Prelude music (see 19.3.2 for guidelines). Reverent music before the meeting starts can invite a spirit of worship.

2. Greeting and welcome.

3. Acknowledgment of presiding authorities or other leaders who are visiting. Presiding authorities and visiting high councilors should be invited to sit on the stand. General Officers are also invited to sit on the stand unless they are attending their home ward.

4. Announcements. These should be kept to a minimum. Most can be printed, shared electronically, or shared in other meetings.

5. Opening hymn and prayer. See 19.3.2 and 29.6.

6. Ward and stake business, such as the following:

   • Sustaining and releasing officers and teachers (see 30.3 and 30.6).

   • Presenting names of brethren to be ordained to an office in the Aaronic Priesthood (see 18.10.3).

   • Recognizing new ward members, including recent converts. After a few words of introduction, the person conducting asks the congregation to show by an uplifted hand that they welcome the member into the ward.

     When children who are members of record are baptized and confirmed, they are recognized in sacrament meeting. However, they do not need to be presented for welcome into the ward.

7. Naming and blessing children (see 18.6). This is usually done in fast and testimony meeting (see 29.2.2).

8. Confirming new converts (see 18.8).

9. Sacrament hymn and administration of the sacrament. The sacrament is the main focus of the meeting. Other parts of the meeting should not detract from it. This ordinance is an opportunity for members to direct their thoughts toward the Savior and His sacrifice for them. It should be a sacred time of spiritual renewal.

   The sacrament table should be prepared before the meeting begins. The bishop ensures that the sacrament is blessed and passed in a reverent and orderly way. Those who administer the sacrament represent Jesus Christ.

   For more about preparing, blessing, and passing the sacrament, see 18.9.

   For information about administering the sacrament in unusual situations, see 29.2.1.5 and 18.9.1.

10. Gospel messages and congregational singing or other music. Messages and music should be consistent with the sacred nature of the sacrament. For information about selecting speakers, see 29.2.1.4. For information about musical selections in sacrament meeting, see 19.3.2.

11. Closing hymn and prayer.

12. Postlude music.

Visual aids and audiovisual materials should not be used in sacrament meetings (see 38.8.3).

This seems to make sense.  Attending Church ought to put families together as much as is practicable.  It is inappropriate to vie for attention or posture for self-aggrandizement, which is what I think this proposal is about.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Also, why is it that only the bishopric can conduct? Does one have to hold the priesthood to do that?

Yes.  From Section 29.2.1.2 of the Handbook:

Quote

29.2.1.2

Presiding at Sacrament Meeting

The bishop presides at sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy in his area, or a General Authority attends. If the bishop and his counselors are not able to attend sacrament meeting, the stake president designates who presides. Normally he designates the elders quorum president. However, he could invite another Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

 

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

"Why not?"-style musings about distorting, for no particular purpose, what is presently a practical and sensible layout and structure don't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to you.   I guess that settles it.  You must not be listening if you think this is being discussed with "no particular purpose".

Not any "particular purpose" that makes sense, no.  

I don't think usurpative activism should count as a "purpose."

I am paying attention, tho.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Again, I am not seeing much interaction with Chesterton's Fence.  

It's been discussed. 

And yet, I'm not seeing much interaction with it.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Usurping what, exactly?

Mostly authority, I suppose.  

Ours is, or is supposed to be, "a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God."  (D&C 88:119.)

Activism, whether of the in-your-face (e.g., Kate Kelly, Sam Young) variety or the more passive/oblique/underhanded styles (lending out a TR, misusing ward lists, publicizing mundane controversies, encouraging others to set aside or depart from prophetic counsel (including, it seems, ignoring or disputing mundane and normative administrative/procedural policies and procedures) should not be a part of the Latter-day Saint community.  See, e.g., then-Elder Oaks excellent 1987 article, Criticism and, more recently, Bro. Ahmad Corbitt's talk, Activism v. Discipleship.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Those darn women usurping equal treatment to pray in conference!  So bothersome!  Leave Chesterton's fence alone!

Actually, that's a really good example of when Chesterton's Fence should be torn down.

But not through activism.  Not through rebellion, defiance, disobedience, fault-finding, backbiting, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 11/25/2023 at 7:52 PM, BRMC said:

OR a return to the original writings, hence a "restored gospel".

The "restoration" includes original writings?  Where?

 

On 11/25/2023 at 7:52 PM, BRMC said:

 

 

  Like I said, I don't get my spiritual study from TikTok.

Who is arguing that Tik Tok is the end all source on spiritual studies?

 

 

On 11/25/2023 at 7:52 PM, BRMC said:

 

 

 I get it from those the Lord appointed in these Latter-days.

Hmmm.  Bully for you. Their track record ain't all that wonderful you know. Lots of errors, back peddaling, not being sure about who or what God and the Godhead is (a pretty important issue), priesthood ban, polygamy and all that.  

 

On 11/25/2023 at 7:52 PM, BRMC said:

 

 

 

When President Nelson sends me a snapchat I'll be all in.  Until then, YMMV.   Good luck with your pursuit.

SOrt of like the November 2015 policy on children of gay marriage was revelation, according to Nelson, then the 180 was as well. Ah but "prophets...."

[Teancum]

On 11/25/2023 at 7:52 PM, BRMC said:

Like I said, I don't get my spiritual study from TikTok.

Ah I See.  @SeekingUnderstandingreferenced a Tik Tok video from Dan McClellan. He is a pretty good source.  My guess is his knowledge of the Bible dar exceeds your own. He is an active Latter-day Saint as well.  Used to post here.

[Teancum]

On 11/25/2023 at 8:08 PM, Mark Beesley said:

Wrong! Your revisionist history is rather transparent.

CFR to show the priesthood ban went back to Joseph Smith.

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, Durangout said:

They are pushing for women’s ordination to the priesthood—obviously.

I’m aware of that. They need to be careful what they ask for. Grass is always greener in the other side. I’m not selfish they can have mine. 

[Teancum]

On 11/25/2023 at 8:41 PM, webbles said:

I've always read that as saying that the doctrine of the church has always been founded on direct commandment from the Lord.  Not that the priesthood restriction has been around since the beginning.

I read it to state that the ban was a direct commandment of the Lord.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/25/2023 at 4:49 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Kind of circular isn’t then. Step one: determine that female ordination didn’t exist. Step two, reinterpret the plain language of the text to support your predetermined beliefs. Glad it works for you 👍

No, you never think for yourself, and just believe the horde headed for the cliffs.

I mean everyone wants to fly anyway, right?

Edited November 28, 2023 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Personally, I think this is one of those practices which I generally characterize as being consistent with (or in harmony with) the scriptures / doctrine, but perhaps not expressly required by the same.

Well said.  This is why I think ongoing activist efforts to push boundaries, tear down Chesterton's Fence, etc., often regarding relatively minor and mundane matters, are not helpful in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I am fine with efforts to lift up and strengthen and improve the Church, but not via adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactic means.  

By way of example, see here:

Quote

Girls Should Be Passing the Sacrament. Full Stop.

JULY 9, 2022 BY SAM BRUNSON

I’ve written about this twice before, but this time I’m going to be completely blunt: the church needs to allow women and girls to pass and prepare the sacrament. Like yesterday. The Doctrine and Covenants expressly prohibits deacons and teachers from administering the sacrament, which means passing and preparing it are not administering it. Thus, the only grounding for requiring priesthood to do those things is tradition.

And here’s the thing: if we’re arbitrarily preventing women and girls from doing something on the basis that we’ve always prohibited them from doing it, we’re sending them a message. And that message is, “You’re second class, and your contributions are less important.” It doesn’t matter how many times we tell women and girls that they’re important, because our actions and policies send the second message.

So why am I posting this for a third time? For one thing, apparently I haven’t been blunt enough in the past. A second is an email from my ward that I just received. For various reasons, we don’t have a lot of youth. (I think we have one young man (though the continuing pandemic means I may be off by one or two.) But I know we have at least two young women, because those two are my daughters.) Because of that, the email asks members of the Elders Quorum to sign up to prepare and pass the sacrament, explaining (accurately) that it’s a way strengthen our relationship with the Savior and serve the ward.

Guess who doesn’t get to strengthen their relationship with the Savior and serve the ward in that way? That’s right: my daughters. Again, based on a cultural limitation that has no scriptural foundation at all.

The young man in our ward has mentioned that being able to pass the sacrament has significantly improved his engagement with and enjoyment of church. And I’m truly happy for him. But it also hurts my heart and my soul because my daughters (again arbitrarily) don’t get the chance to do that.

I don’t know why the church has maintained this policy, even as it has walked back from other nonscriptural policy choices. But this is one that needs to change immediately. It doesn’t require any revelation. It doesn’t require any change to our doctrinal position. It doesn’t require giving women and girls priesthood. It doesn’t require rereading or reinterpreting scripture. Because again, to be clear, administering the sacrament can only be done by Melchizedek priesthood holders and priests. What deacons and teachers do is not by virtue of priesthood, and there is absolutely no scriptural reason it can’t be done by people who do not hold the priesthood.

Which, again, means these gendered restrictions send a very clear message to women and girls.

Update: A friend on Twitter had an ingenious idea about how wards could implement this immediately (like, literally tomorrow) without any policy change:

Several years ago, the bishop of the Hyde Park Ward here in Chicago started having girls stand outside the nursing room. A deacon would bring the sacrament tray to a girl, who would carry it inside. And the church gave its stamp of approval to the innovation. And honestly, there’s no theological difference between giving a girl the tray outside of a room and giving it to her immediately after handing it to the deacon.

So let’s move forward in actually showing women and girls that they are as central to the church’s function as we say they are. Let’s let girls strengthen their relationship to the Savior, serve the ward, and find meaning at church in the same way we let boys. There’s nothing standing in our way.

I think Bro. Brunson makes some solid points about changing the Church's policies/procedures, and I would be open to this change.  But he goes off the rails by publicly demanding it, by encouraging activism (apparently by "progressive" wards) and perhaps even low-grade subversion, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 11/27/2023 at 12:50 PM, smac97 said:

Tokenism.  Pandering.  Performative virtue signaling.

I predict we will see these words repeated dozens and dozens of times in any posts Smac makes in this thread.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Tokenism.  Pandering.  Performative virtue signaling.

I predict we will see these words repeated dozens and dozens of times in any posts Smac makes in this thread.

And "usurpative activism" as well.

Alas, many of our discussions on this board have been reduced to petty grievances, trivialities, and other First World Problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well said.  This is why I think ongoing activist efforts to push boundaries, tear down Chesterton's Fence, etc., often regarding relatively minor and mundane matters, are not helpful in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I am fine with efforts to lift up and strengthen and improve the Church, but not via adversarial / antagonistic / activist / disruptive / usurpative / pressure tactic means.  

By way of example, see here:

I think Bro. Brunson makes some solid points about changing the Church's policies/procedures, and I would be open to this change.  But he goes off the rails by publicly demanding it, by encouraging activism (apparently by "progressive" wards) and perhaps even low-grade subversion, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

A girl passing it to a mother nursing a baby is the same as passing it to the person next to you. But the Sacrament is a priesthood ordinance and should be completely handled by the priesthood where possible.