LDS Freedom Forum

We had a special stake conference with an Apostle today, and when he entered the room everyone stood up. I have been in several meetings with apostles, and no one ever stood up when they entered the room. Is this a new practice?

I don't have a problem with it, I just want to know if it is a gospel principle or a cultural thing.

Gideon wrote:We had a special stake conference with an Apostle today, and when he entered the room everyone stood up. I have been in several meetings with apostles, and no one ever stood up when they entered the room. Is this a new practice?

I don't have a problem with it, I just want to know if it is a gospel principle or a cultural thing.

Mormon culture, NOT doctrine. I was at the Constitution day thing with Oaks when just about everyone did the same thing. I have seen it at every event with a 12 or higher speaking for the last 15 or so years at least

Mahonri wrote:

Gideon wrote:We had a special stake conference with an Apostle today, and when he entered the room everyone stood up. I have been in several meetings with apostles, and no one ever stood up when they entered the room. Is this a new practice?

I don't have a problem with it, I just want to know if it is a gospel principle or a cultural thing.

Mormon culture, NOT doctrine. I was at the Constitution day thing with Oaks when just about everyone did the same thing. I have seen it at every event with a 12 or higher speaking for the last 15 or so years at least

I wanted to see what was going on, but everyone in front of me was standing. Not to mention, it can be awkward sitting behind someone who is standing up for more than a few seconds. :-\

mattctr wrote: Not to mention, it can be awkward sitting behind someone who is standing up for more than a few seconds. :-\

=))

Well, actually it is doctrine. Everybody is "ask" to stand (agency) and an announcement is made that the GA entering (announced by name) is now presiding at the meeting, then an invitation is given to turn the meeting over to the (now) presiding authority (take the podium) who accepts or declines as he wishes.

Usually the protocol is set up in advance, but I have attended two meetings where the GA's appearance was a complete surprise. In the first case the Stake Presidency second counselor was so completely surprised that he become pretty much fuddled at the podium, in the second case the Bishop handled things like the expert he was. The first was with Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith , the other was with President Kimball. The first an evening stake conference meeting, the second a Sacrament meeting President Kimball was attending because one of his great grandchildren was being confirmed after baptism.

JFS took the podium and announced there would be some stake leadership changes the next day, he also lectured for awhile on correct protocol. President Kimball did not, instructed the Bishop to continue the meeting as prepared, but did sit on the stand at the invitation of the Bishop.

Bob

bobhenstra wrote:Well, actually it is doctrine.
Bob

you got anything to back that up?

Read the Church Handbook under protocol!

Bob

Really Bob? You had to yell?

Handbook 2 is the only one everyone is allowed to read to find out what is now doctrine and what isn't, so please let me know which page it is on
http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-admi ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it really hard to believe that there is actually instructions in the HB that says to stand when an Apostle enters the room, but would be glad to be corrected.

Either way, why would it being in the HB make it doctrine, and not just a practice?

Mahonri wrote:Really Bob? You had to yell?

Handbook 2 is the only one everyone is allowed to read to find out what is now doctrine and what isn't, so please let me know which page it is on
http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-admi ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it really hard to believe that there is actually instructions in the HB that says to stand when an Apostle enters the room, but would be glad to be corrected.

Either way, why would it being in the HB make it doctrine, and not just a practice?

If it is there, the recent worldwide training offered several quotes that refer to it as doctrine: http://lds.org/church/news/handbook-tra ... n?lang=eng

“The handbook is doctrinal,” said Elder Oaks, “and it is shorter than the prior handbook because on many subjects it refrains from stating rules or giving directions. Instead, it gives principles that inspired leaders can apply . . . according to their local circumstances.”

Elder Bednar and Elder Christofferson warned leaders against skipping the beginning chapters of Handbook 2 to get to the policies in the chapters thereafter. The earlier chapters lay a doctrinal foundation for understanding and applying the principles and policies that follow.

Elder Bednar said that for the handbooks to be “principle-based, with fewer applications spelled out, is a much more spiritually demanding and rigorous requirement for all of us.”
Principles of Adaptation

“On matters of doctrine, covenants, and policies established by the First Presidency and the Twelve, we do not deviate from the handbook,” said Elder Nelson. “Adaptability is allowed on some other activities to meet local circumstances.”

It was in the missionary handbook. Obviously this doesn't apply to all church members. However, if it was a church culture, it is most likely taken from those who have all served missions. Even at the MTC, they specifically ask everyone to stand when they enter.

I have heard of people getting carried away with it. Someone who attending BYU several years back related to me how at one of the devotionals they had, there were signs asking people not to sing when an apostle or prophet enters the room.

Mahonri wrote:Really Bob? You had to yell?

Bob didn't yell. The correct protocol for yelling on the web would be to USE CAPITAL LETTERS!!

Standing to show respect and honor to the office isn't really a bad thing is it??

mattctr wrote:

Mahonri wrote:Really Bob? You had to yell?

Handbook 2 is the only one everyone is allowed to read to find out what is now doctrine and what isn't, so please let me know which page it is on
http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-admi ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it really hard to believe that there is actually instructions in the HB that says to stand when an Apostle enters the room, but would be glad to be corrected.

Either way, why would it being in the HB make it doctrine, and not just a practice?

If it is there, the recent worldwide training offered several quotes that refer to it as doctrine: http://lds.org/church/news/handbook-tra ... n?lang=eng

“The handbook is doctrinal,” said Elder Oaks, “and it is shorter than the prior handbook because on many subjects it refrains from stating rules or giving directions. Instead, it gives principles that inspired leaders can apply . . . according to their local circumstances.”

Elder Bednar and Elder Christofferson warned leaders against skipping the beginning chapters of Handbook 2 to get to the policies in the chapters thereafter. The earlier chapters lay a doctrinal foundation for understanding and applying the principles and policies that follow.

Elder Bednar said that for the handbooks to be “principle-based, with fewer applications spelled out, is a much more spiritually demanding and rigorous requirement for all of us.”
Principles of Adaptation

“On matters of doctrine, covenants, and policies established by the First Presidency and the Twelve, we do not deviate from the handbook,” said Elder Nelson. “Adaptability is allowed on some other activities to meet local circumstances.”

I guess it depends on ones definition of "doctrine". When I was referring to "doctrine" I was talking about eternal principles that do not change, that have been principles taught in every dispensation as something that always has been and always will be truth.

Not that I have a problem showing proper respect where it is due, this just really seems like a practice more than a doctrine, and have been shown otherwise.

shadow wrote:

Mahonri wrote:Really Bob? You had to yell?

Standing to show respect and honor to the office isn't really a bad thing is it??

This is one of those practices I don't understand. It seems quite at odds with the "let him who is greatest among you be your servant" injunction of the Savior. He specifically spoke against seeking the foremost seats in the upper rooms and set the example of washing the feet of His disciples. Not that I'm suggesting this is inherently a bad thing, just wondering about its genesis. Anyone know the history of this practice in the church?

The handbook is NOT doctrine:
"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." -President Harold B. Lee

"The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” -Elder B.H. Roberts

An example of this process was in 1880 when President George Q. Cannon presented the Pearl of Great Price and 32 additional sections of the Doctrine and Covenants;
"I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church."

More recently (2007) the Church issued a press release defining Official Doctrine as established by
“The First Presidency … and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price).”
http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approac ... n-doctrine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine: It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

mattctr wrote:

Mahonri wrote:Really Bob? You had to yell?

Handbook 2 is the only one everyone is allowed to read to find out what is now doctrine and what isn't, so please let me know which page it is on
http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-admi ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it really hard to believe that there is actually instructions in the HB that says to stand when an Apostle enters the room, but would be glad to be corrected.

Either way, why would it being in the HB make it doctrine, and not just a practice?

If it is there, the recent worldwide training offered several quotes that refer to it as doctrine: http://lds.org/church/news/handbook-tra ... n?lang=eng

“The handbook is doctrinal,” said Elder Oaks, “and it is shorter than the prior handbook because on many subjects it refrains from stating rules or giving directions. Instead, it gives principles that inspired leaders can apply . . . according to their local circumstances.”

Elder Bednar and Elder Christofferson warned leaders against skipping the beginning chapters of Handbook 2 to get to the policies in the chapters thereafter. The earlier chapters lay a doctrinal foundation for understanding and applying the principles and policies that follow.

Elder Bednar said that for the handbooks to be “principle-based, with fewer applications spelled out, is a much more spiritually demanding and rigorous requirement for all of us.”
Principles of Adaptation

“On matters of doctrine, covenants, and policies established by the First Presidency and the Twelve, we do not deviate from the handbook,” said Elder Nelson. “Adaptability is allowed on some other activities to meet local circumstances.”

None of those quotes say that the handbook itself IS doctrine. For example the first quote says it's "doctrinal" which means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with doctrine" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrinal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Yes the book relates to and mentions some specific doctrines (for example some scriptures) but the book itself is NOT doctrine.

fegunz wrote:None of those quotes say that the handbook itself IS doctrine. For example the first quote says it's "doctrinal" which means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with doctrine" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrinal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Yes the book relates to and mentions some specific doctrines (for example some scriptures) but the book itself is NOT doctrine.

Good point.

mattctr wrote:

fegunz wrote:None of those quotes say that the handbook itself IS doctrine. For example the first quote says it's "doctrinal" which means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with doctrine" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrinal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Yes the book relates to and mentions some specific doctrines (for example some scriptures) but the book itself is NOT doctrine.

Good point.

Great point...thanks.

Definitely cultural. I can't imagine Joseph Smith wanting everyone to stand whenever he entered a room. He'd rather wrestle with you than have you stand and stare at him in awe as he entered a room.

As to washing the feet, when a new prophet is made he washes all of the other apostles feet.

As always the Savior provides the perfect example of how we should behave. When Christ was called "good", He rebuked the one rendering the praise, with the retort: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God." (Like 18:18-19) He would accept their persecution, derision, and shame, but discouraged any praise.

Somehow I don't think it pleases the Savior to have us praising, honoring, & dare I say worshiping man, reguardless of their callings.

reese wrote:As always the Savior provides the perfect example of how we should behave. When Christ was called "good", He rebuked the one rendering the praise, with the retort: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God." (Like 18:18-19) He would accept their persecution, derision, and shame, but discouraged any praise.

Somehow I don't think it pleases the Savior to have us praising, honoring, & dare I say worshiping man, reguardless of their callings.

I completely agree which is why I've had a problem with the hymn "Praise to the man" for a while now.

It is military custom to stand at "parade rest" when a senior enlisted officer comes into the room. And when a commissioned officer comes into the room everyone jumps to their feet to "attention."

Not saying this is where it comes from, just putting this out there.

I guess it depends on how you define "praise" but I just took the time to read the definition and according the definition I guess I don't have a problem after all. I guess I read too much into "praise" before.

"hero worship"?, wonder what Christ would think?.......just a thought