LDS Freedom Forum

Onsdag wrote:

zionminded wrote:

Obrien wrote:

zionminded wrote:Should the Relief Society president sit on the stand during sacrament meeting? Could the Bishop in the ward ask her if she wanted too or would that be against some policy or standard?

I would personally like to see this more often.

No. No one should sit on the stand. There shouldn't be a stand.

Obrien +1

So the Lord's Church shouldn't be a house of order? The presiding authority shouldn't be seen and known to the congregation? The sheep shouldn't know who their shepherd is? The bishop shouldn't be able to sit in a position where he can preside and conduct the meeting efficiently and decently? The bishop shouldn't be able to be in a position where he can look out over the congregation and see who is or isn't there? Or see if there is certain needs of the members? Or be in a position to look into the faces of the ward members and receive revelation and inspiration on who to call to fill positions in the Church, or who may be sinning and needing help?

The bishop is not my Shepard.

Onsdag wrote:

Obrien wrote:

David13 wrote:I have to ask why she should sit on the stand. To look 'politically correct', or 'modern' or 'up to date' or 'hip' or what?
When they have announcements they do, to make their announcements.
Otherwise they can sit with the family, if they have one.
dc

I see the resident cynic has chimed in with some snide comments, as usual. Or are those merely snarky comments?

Neither snide nor snarky.

Why do you think we need a stand in the chapel?
Also, I've been to LOTS more sacrament meetings than you, and I have yet to see a councilor do any counseling during a sacrament meeting.

I have seen it regularly. Unless the whispers frequently exchanged are not "counseling" but instead gossip. I've also seen bishops send a counselor off to do some important errand for them while during sacrament meeting. Not to mention the times when a bishop is not present and a counselor must preside instead.

Having a bishop and his counselors on the stand lets everyone, including visitors, know who the proper and presiding authorities are. The first counselor sits to the right of the bishop, and the second counselor sits on the left. Unless a higher presiding authority is present of course...

As for a Relief Society president sitting on the stand? Yep, I've seen it... when they are giving a talk, testimony, or making an announcement at the request of the bishop. ;)

If a Relief Society presidency should sit on the stand then shouldn't an Elders Quorum presidency too? And why stop there? Young Men, Sunday School, Primary, etc., etc., should all be represented too...

I was told that it was so the members and visitors would all know who the presiding authorities were. This way, if they needed direction or assistance, they knew who to approach for help.

I see no problem with the rs pres. Sitting on the stand
To help keep the men organized.

brlenox wrote:

Obrien wrote:
=)) I've never seen a bishop need assistance or counsel whilst in the act of presiding.
Come to think of it, I've never seen a councilor need the firm hand of the presidifier to keep the councilor on the straight and narrow either.
It's strictly an ego boost / vestige of corporate structure.
GOD is no respecter of persons, but MAN has a great need to be respected.

You've obviously never been a Bishop, but you hometeach a person who has been. I should hope he might be able to educate you on these kinds of matters.

This is the only comment in the steam of invective that piques my curiosity. I've stated on the forum that I've never been a bishop. Perhaps there is a lot of behind the scenes action that is taking place in the chapel that makes my sacrament meeting more fulfilling, but I doubt it. I'm a pretty close observer. There is likely preparation before hand that is shared by councillors, but the actual meeting would be fine with a single "presiding authority", if one were required at all. In my current ward, we have the bishopric, a member of the stake presidency and a high councillor who sit on the stand weekly. Overkill.

Why do you presume I have a former bishop as a HT assignment? Do you think you've picked me out of the herd? I rather suspect not.

I do appreciate your comments brlenox - seriously. Please educate me about these matters. If they are too sacred to discuss in the open forum, pm me. You have my address.

I guess the larger point I was making in my original post was that if we were in tune with the Spirit, we would let inspiration preside, and we would have meetings more like those described in Moroni 6. See verse 9 specifically.

Obrien wrote:

brlenox wrote:

Obrien wrote:
=)) I've never seen a bishop need assistance or counsel whilst in the act of presiding.
Come to think of it, I've never seen a councilor need the firm hand of the presidifier to keep the councilor on the straight and narrow either.
It's strictly an ego boost / vestige of corporate structure.
GOD is no respecter of persons, but MAN has a great need to be respected.

You've obviously never been a Bishop, but you hometeach a person who has been. I should hope he might be able to educate you on these kinds of matters.

This is the only comment in the steam of invective that piques my curiosity. I've stated on the forum that I've never been a bishop. Perhaps there is a lot of behind the scenes action that is taking place in the chapel that makes my sacrament meeting more fulfilling, but I doubt it. I'm a pretty close observer. There is likely preparation before hand that is shared by councillors, but the actual meeting would be fine with a single "presiding authority", if one were required at all. In my current ward, we have the bishopric, a member of the stake presidency and a high councillor who sit on the stand weekly. Overkill.

Why do you presume I have a former bishop as a HT assignment? Do you think you've picked me out of the herd? I rather suspect not.

I do appreciate your comments brlenox - seriously. Please educate me about these matters. If they are too sacred to discuss in the open forum, pm me. You have my address.

I guess the larger point I was making in my original post was that if we were in tune with the Spirit, we would let inspiration preside, and we would have meetings more like those described in Moroni 6. See verse 9 specifically.

We will learn you Obrien. It does take patience...

bornfree wrote:I see no problem with the rs pres. Sitting on the stand
To help keep the men organized.

Correct.

If the ward is older, the RS might be ok. If the ward is younger, Primary President would be better. If there are lots of teenagers, then the Young Womens President should be there.

I would like to see the RS president as part of the bishopric.

Obrien wrote:

Onsdag wrote: So the Lord's Church shouldn't be a house of order? The presiding authority shouldn't be seen and known to the congregation? The sheep shouldn't know who their shepherd is? The bishop shouldn't be able to sit in a position where he can preside and conduct the meeting efficiently and decently? The bishop shouldn't be able to be in a position where he can look out over the congregation and see who is or isn't there? Or see if there is certain needs of the members? Or be in a position to look into the faces of the ward members and receive revelation and inspiration on who to call to fill positions in the Church, or who may be sinning and needing help?

The bishop is not my Shepard.

Ultimately there is only one true Shepherd, but you don't think a bishop can be a shepherd, acting for and in behalf of the "Chief Shepherd"? (See 1 Peter 5:1-4; Jeremiah 23:4; D&C 1:38; and even Ezekiel 34:2-10 is indicative of the Lord using other servants/shepherds to fulfill His will (though here in Ezekiel He is chastising "my shepherds" who aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing))

Obrien and brlenox said stuff, then...

rewcox wrote:
We will learn you Obrien. It does take patience...

This is an example of your cryptic responses.
Please expand in what you mean. I'm honestly thinking you have a typo in this reply.

Obrien wrote:Obrien and brlenox said stuff, then...

rewcox wrote:
We will learn you Obrien. It does take patience...

This is an example of your cryptic responses.
Please expand in what you mean. I'm honestly thinking you have a typo in this reply.

Normally it would be stated, "We will teach you." I said, "We will learn you."

I don't think it's cryptic or a typo at all.
I think it's what's called a colloquialism.
dc

I think it's 'hillbilly' talk or maybe farm talk.
Junior, 8 years old,might say "Paw ain't learned me how to run the tractor yet."
Meaning he ain't taught me yet.

Onsdag wrote:

Obrien wrote:

Onsdag wrote: So the Lord's Church shouldn't be a house of order? The presiding authority shouldn't be seen and known to the congregation? The sheep shouldn't know who their shepherd is? The bishop shouldn't be able to sit in a position where he can preside and conduct the meeting efficiently and decently? The bishop shouldn't be able to be in a position where he can look out over the congregation and see who is or isn't there? Or see if there is certain needs of the members? Or be in a position to look into the faces of the ward members and receive revelation and inspiration on who to call to fill positions in the Church, or who may be sinning and needing help?

The bishop is not my Shepard.

Ultimately there is only one true Shepherd, but you don't think a bishop can be a shepherd, acting for and in behalf of the "Chief Shepherd"? (See 1 Peter 5:1-4; Jeremiah 23:4; D&C 1:38; and even Ezekiel 34:2-10 is indicative of the Lord using other servants/shepherds to fulfill His will (though here in Ezekiel He is chastising "my shepherds" who aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing))

I understand. I think a lot of bishops try to be a Shepard, but they fall somewhere between Shepard and hirling. They can't help but do so, and I don't blame then for that.

Read moroni 6:9 and visualize what a sacrament meeting back then looked like...

rewcox wrote:

Obrien wrote:Obrien and brlenox said stuff, then...

rewcox wrote:
We will learn you Obrien. It does take patience...

This is an example of your cryptic responses.
Please expand in what you mean. I'm honestly thinking you have a typo in this reply.

Normally it would be stated, "We will teach you." I said, "We will learn you."

Ok, I get it... You're going to persuade me with gentleness meekness and love unfiegned. Thanks brothers.

Obrien wrote:Read moroni 6:9 and visualize what a sacrament meeting back then looked like...

9 And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done.

Hey Robin Hood, do you follow this? Maybe Obrien has had the unfortunate luck to be in bad wards.

Obrien wrote:

rewcox wrote:We will learn you Obrien. It does take patience...Normally it would be stated, "We will teach you." I said, "We will learn you."

This is an example of your cryptic responses.
Please expand in what you mean. I'm honestly thinking you have a typo in this reply.

Ok, I get it... You're going to persuade me with gentleness meekness and love unfiegned. Thanks brothers.

Yes, we love you lots. God loved Alma the younger, sent him an Angel (if you want to be destroyed, go ahead), and gave him some intense pain. Then he had him remember his dad's words on Christ.

Learning with love unfiegned!

Obrien wrote:

Onsdag wrote:

Obrien wrote:

Onsdag wrote: So the Lord's Church shouldn't be a house of order? The presiding authority shouldn't be seen and known to the congregation? The sheep shouldn't know who their shepherd is? The bishop shouldn't be able to sit in a position where he can preside and conduct the meeting efficiently and decently? The bishop shouldn't be able to be in a position where he can look out over the congregation and see who is or isn't there? Or see if there is certain needs of the members? Or be in a position to look into the faces of the ward members and receive revelation and inspiration on who to call to fill positions in the Church, or who may be sinning and needing help?

The bishop is not my Shepard.

Ultimately there is only one true Shepherd, but you don't think a bishop can be a shepherd, acting for and in behalf of the "Chief Shepherd"? (See 1 Peter 5:1-4; Jeremiah 23:4; D&C 1:38; and even Ezekiel 34:2-10 is indicative of the Lord using other servants/shepherds to fulfill His will (though here in Ezekiel He is chastising "my shepherds" who aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing))

I understand. I think a lot of bishops try to be a Shepard, but they fall somewhere between Shepard and hirling. They can't help but do so, and I don't blame then for that.

Read moroni 6:9 and visualize what a sacrament meeting back then looked like...

I believe all bishops are called and ordained to be a shepherd. I believe most strive with all their might to fulfill such a stewardship in righteousness. However, there are some, as you pointed out, who act more the part of a hireling. This still doesn't negate the fact that they are called by God to fill the role of shepherd for the flock. Ultimately they will have to answer to the True and Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ, for how they did or didn't care for His flock.

As for the scripture you referred to - it is a beautiful example of how meetings should be conducted, but says nothing specifically about the order and organization of the Church. I have been witness innumerable times to a Bishop, Stake President, or other presiding authority conducting meetings exactly as detailed in that scripture. I have been in sacrament meetings where the Bishop felt inspired to have us just sing hymns for the entire block instead of following the listed program. I have also been in meetings where the congregation was sent home after sacrament meeting (which was the first hour block) so that we could ponder on the importance of the sacrament, be with family, fulfill an assignment, or some other thing. I have been in meetings where the presiding authority felt impressed to call on someone to share an impromptu testimony. And, most frequently, I have been in meetings that go according as planned and outlined in the program (i.e. your 'typical' Church meeting), but which are still filled with the power and workings of the Holy Ghost in great abundance.

carbon dioxide wrote:I don't see a reason why she could not sit on the stand. My only question would be why would one want to? Would she not rather be with the family? I know I always have preferred to sit somewhere, anywhere other than on the stand.

yea she should be with the family to make sure kids are not running all over the place and screaming.

rewcox wrote:

Obrien wrote:Read moroni 6:9 and visualize what a sacrament meeting back then looked like...

9 And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done.

What!?! They were conducted?? Obrien will flip out once he reads that. Probably conducted by the bishop and his counselors :-$

I've given talks before in sacrament meeting. Almost all of them were influenced by the workings of the spirit. Obrien is looking well beyond the mark if he thinks a prepared sacrament meeting doesn't equal verse 9 from above.
Seriously Obrien, have you never been influenced by the Holy Ghost when preparing a talk?? When praying?

I had an interesting insight yesterday when teaching Gospel Doctrine, learning about Ephesians. In Chapter 1, Paul talks about the eventual "fulness of the dispensation of times." I began to realize what has happened to EVERY other single dispensation in the history of the world. It has ended in apostasy! Why do we have such strict guidelines and centralized "unwritten rules" in the church? Because this dispensation CANNOT end in apostasy! The gospel in its fulness and including the priesthood keys must be intact and here to greet the Savior on His return. So far, that has been about 185 years--and it's possible it will be another 185, or maybe only 20, or 50, or 75...in any case, the priesthood has to still be functioning and authority to use those keys has to be here. It's kind of out of line with our "modern" world with all those old ideas in their new format, though, isn't it?

Stacy Oliver wrote:

zionminded wrote:Should the Relief Society president sit on the stand during sacrament meeting? Could the Bishop in the ward ask her if she wanted too or would that be against some policy or standard?

I would personally like to see this more often.

Why should she? The Bishop is on the stand because he's presiding, and his counselors are there to assistant/counsel him. Why should someone from the RS be there?

To flick them on the ear when they go to sleep.

Obrien wrote:...Also, I've been to LOTS more sacrament meetings than you, and I have yet to see a councilor do any counseling during a sacrament meeting.

I have.

Why can nobody partake of the Sacrament before the Bishop?

Stahura wrote:Why can nobody partake of the Sacrament before the Bishop?

It falls under either the written (Handbook) or unwritten order of things.

My current ward is pretty informal. Kids sit on the stand with their dads. Many people sit in the choir seating as their seat of choice each week.

However, I am in agreement with Obrien on this one. Really, only the person conduction needs to be up there. The rest is just tradition. Same with passing the sacrament to the highest ranking or presiding authority first. I think it implies a member serving leader model instead of leader serving member.

I have spoken to many bishops and stake presidents about this. Some agree with me and some don't.

Stahura wrote:Why can nobody partake of the Sacrament before the Bishop?

Granted, we're going back 5 decades, but I seem to recall being told we do it as a sign of respect for our priesthood leadership. Made sense to me then. Makes sense to me still.