Should RS president sit on the stand in SM?

[Zathura]

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.

EdGoble talks a lot about this.

It doesn't make sense why we need to show extra respect and reverence towards leaders. It doesn't seem to be something the scriptures teach: to esteem a man as higher than any other man, or to give one man more love, respect,attention etc than another human being purely based on ranking in an hierarchy. I don't like it. I think there's a reason they called him "brother Joseph"

Just my opinion. I find it revolting, this idea of showing reverence towards leaders and extra respect/loyalty/submission, but whatever

[Lizzy60]

Yesterday, in Fast and Testimony meeting, a woman was in tears as she emotionally praised the Stake President (sitting on the stand) and the Bishop, bearing testimony that she KNEW these were truly men of God, chosen by God to rule, I mean lead, our Stake. It was definitely over-the-top. The emotion, the tissues, the praise. That's the slippery slope we are on when we esteem certain men over others.

In reality, we are all sinners, all unprofitable servants, all less than the dust of the earth, for the dust of the earth obeys God faithfully, while all men (and women) fail to obtain His will in all things, much less do His will in all things.

[Zathura]

Yesterday, in Fast and Testimony meeting, a woman was in tears as she emotionally praised the Stake President (sitting on the stand) and the Bishop, bearing testimony that she KNEW these were truly men of God, chosen by God to rule, I mean lead, our Stake. It was definitely over-the-top. The emotion, the tissues, the praise. That's the slippery slope we are on when we esteem certain men over others.

In reality, we are all sinners, all unprofitable servants, all less than the dust of the earth, for the dust of the earth obeys God faithfully, while all men (and women) fail to obtain His will in all things, much less do His will in all things.

I'm grateful for leaders, but this is too much.

Yesterday a similar thing happened but in the opening prayer. She Thanked God for a few things, and then thanked God for Thomas Monson and literally spent 2 or 3 minutes coming up with various adjectives to describe him (Sweet, kind, Christlike etc) And talking about his service and example, and asking blessings upon him and his Spirit and mind etc.

I mean, I understand . I'm grateful for leaders and their counsel, but come on. That lady didn't mention Jesus until the ended the prayer in the name of Jesus.

[h_p]

Why can nobody partake of the Sacrament before the Bishop?

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

It's from Handbook 2 (20.4.3). It just states that the presiding officer receives the sacrament first, but doesn't explain why. It also says the deacons can walk to their assigned areas before the officer takes the sacrament. I had thought it was some kind of failsafe measure for the presiding officer to ensure that the blessing was done properly before being passed to the congregation, but letting the deacons proceed beforehand kind of nullifies that.

[skmo]

It doesn't make sense why we need to show extra respect and reverence towards leaders.

You mean it doesn't make sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

Just my opinion. I find it revolting, this idea of showing reverence towards leaders and extra respect/loyalty/submission, but whatever

Revolting? Really? Something that is a sign of respect, especially something as trivial as this and you choose a word like revolting? That's a word I'd associate with things like political debates, campaign promises, and cleaning a bathtub with your tongue. Do they do something different with this in your ward, like while the deacon is going up to the bishop or the HC member to give the Sacrament, are they poking you with a needle or making you listen to Barbara Streisand? Seems like an awful lot of fuss over something done to be respectful.

Is that it? Does your dictionary just not include the word respect?

[Zathura]

It doesn't make sense why we need to show extra respect and reverence towards leaders.

You mean it doesn't make sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

Just my opinion. I find it revolting, this idea of showing reverence towards leaders and extra respect/loyalty/submission, but whatever

Revolting? Really? Something that is a sign of respect, especially something as trivial as this and you choose a word like revolting? That's a word I'd associate with things like political debates, campaign promises, and cleaning a bathtub with your tongue. Do they do something different with this in your ward, like while the deacon is going up to the bishop or the HC member to give the Sacrament, are they poking you with a needle or making you listen to Barbara Streisand? Seems like an awful lot of fuss over something done to be respectful.

Is that it? Does your dictionary just not include the word respect?

I said it's my opinion. Yes it doesn't make sense to me.
We should never treat one as higher than another man. We should never give one man more respect than another just because he has a title. That revolts me because this is a spiritual institution, God's church, so the fact that this happens in church saddens me, and revolts me.

Like I said its my opinion.

On my mission in Brazil, you couldn't go to a mission conference with a General Authority if you didn't wear your suit jacket. You couldn't take them off if the General Authority didn't tell you to. What on earth is that crap? Standing up when he enters the room and sitting once he sits down.. I love the counsels that our leaders do and I'm grateful for them, but that's too much.

[skmo]

We should never treat one as higher than another man.

Fair enough. Please tell my boss to make my paycheck as big as his is.

No, make it as big as Peyton Manning's is.

We should never give one man more respect than another just because he has a title.

Yes, we should respect someone's title. Organizations, by their very nature, have a hierarchy. Generally, the higher one goes, the better they've performed or the more that's required of them, or both. It deserves respect. If they're not doing what they should, they'll be removed, generally speaking. If an individual leader does something you disagree with, take it up with them or whatever proper channels apply (like my previously told story about me holding my bishop up against the wall by his throat) but if I'm voluntarily associating myself with an organization, I'm going to go through the steps which are deemed appropriate.

On my mission in Brazil, you couldn't go to a mission conference with a General Authority if you didn't wear your suit jacket. You couldn't take them off if the General Authority didn't tell you to. What on earth is that crap?

Meh. I generally ignore silly little things like this. I'm required to wear a suit coat to go in? If it's important enough for me to go, I'll probably comply. Once I'm in, I will decide if and when it's too hot to keep on. If it's important enough for them to stop the meeting and tell me to put my coat back on, I'll see it as an opportunity to have a nice discussion about free agency. My Mission Prez and I went round and round about this. He was an MBA from Hah-vahd and thought we should all be little Ivy League boys, too. That didn't really last very long with me as soon as I felt what Washington D.C. humidity was like. Yes, he chastised me, yes, I ignored him. No, I didn't get sent home because he didn't want to lose the numbers of baptisms I had.Bottom line: Your title grants you my respect. Keeping it requires your effort, at least as an individual. I'll still respect the office, though.

Standing up when he enters the room and sitting once he sits down.. I love the counsels that our leaders do and I'm grateful for them, but that's too much.

I had to stand whenever a judge enters the room. If I can show legal clowns respect, I can for a Judge in Israel, too.

[Zathura]

We should never treat one as higher than another man.

Fair enough. Please tell my boss to make my paycheck as big as his is.

No, make it as big as Peyton Manning's is.

We should never give one man more respect than another just because he has a title.

Yes, we should respect someone's title. Organizations, by their very nature, have a hierarchy. Generally, the higher one goes, the better they've performed or the more that's required of them, or both. It deserves respect. If they're not doing what they should, they'll be removed, generally speaking. If an individual leader does something you disagree with, take it up with them or whatever proper channels apply (like my previously told story about me holding my bishop up against the wall by his throat) but if I'm voluntarily associating myself with an organization, I'm going to go through the steps which are deemed appropriate.

On my mission in Brazil, you couldn't go to a mission conference with a General Authority if you didn't wear your suit jacket. You couldn't take them off if the General Authority didn't tell you to. What on earth is that crap?

Meh. I generally ignore silly little things like this. I'm required to wear a suit coat to go in? If it's important enough for me to go, I'll probably comply. Once I'm in, I will decide if and when it's too hot to keep on. If it's important enough for them to stop the meeting and tell me to put my coat back on, I'll see it as an opportunity to have a nice discussion about free agency. My Mission Prez and I went round and round about this. He was an MBA from Hah-vahd and thought we should all be little Ivy League boys, too. That didn't really last very long with me as soon as I felt what Washington D.C. humidity was like. Yes, he chastised me, yes, I ignored him. No, I didn't get sent home because he didn't want to lose the numbers of baptisms I had.Bottom line: Your title grants you my respect. Keeping it requires your effort, at least as an individual. I'll still respect the office, though.

Standing up when he enters the room and sitting once he sits down.. I love the counsels that our leaders do and I'm grateful for them, but that's too much.

I had to stand whenever a judge enters the room. If I can show legal clowns respect, I can for a Judge in Israel, too.

I thank you for your reasonable and level headed response

[OCDMOM]

Why would she want to? What if she has to go to the bathroom? Does she want everyone staring at her. Oh hey look at me I'm so special.

[skmo]

I thank you for your reasonable and level headed response

Dammed rare thing from me.

I think it's safe to say I've been at least as rebellious as you, but I must be mellowing with old age. Being over 50 is getting to me.

Please, God, don't let me reach 60.

[Zathura]

I thank you for your reasonable and level headed response

Dammed rare thing from me.

I think it's safe to say I've been at least as rebellious as you, but I must be mellowing with old age. Being over 50 is getting to me.

Please, God, don't let me reach 60.

HA! Rebellious?? Maybe just a little

60 years young? Those are the Golden Years!

[Onsdag]

Why can nobody partake of the Sacrament before the Bishop?

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

It's from Handbook 2 (20.4.3). It just states that the presiding officer receives the sacrament first, but doesn't explain why. It also says the deacons can walk to their assigned areas before the officer takes the sacrament. I had thought it was some kind of failsafe measure for the presiding officer to ensure that the blessing was done properly before being passed to the congregation, but letting the deacons proceed beforehand kind of nullifies that.

3 Nephi 20:
3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.
4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.
5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

Christ set the example for us by first giving to his disciples the sacrament, and then afterwards having them distribute it to the congregation. There are some people, it would seem, who would condemn even Jesus Christ for "showing preference" and "respecting one man above another"...

[Obrien]

Why can nobody partake of the Sacrament before the Bishop?

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

It's from Handbook 2 (20.4.3). It just states that the presiding officer receives the sacrament first, but doesn't explain why. It also says the deacons can walk to their assigned areas before the officer takes the sacrament. I had thought it was some kind of failsafe measure for the presiding officer to ensure that the blessing was done properly before being passed to the congregation, but letting the deacons proceed beforehand kind of nullifies that.

3 Nephi 20:
3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.
4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.
5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

Christ set the example for us by first giving to his disciples the sacrament, and then afterwards having them distribute it to the congregation. There are some people, it would seem, who would condemn even Jesus Christ for "showing preference" and "respecting one man above another"...

I guess I wouldn't care a lick if I had wine with my sacrament. Don't get me started on that...
I never condemn Christ for His actions. It is MEN who jostle for and crave the highest seats, the most honored positions, the first taste of the emblems.

[Dash jones]

Why can nobody partake of the Sacrament before the Bishop?

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

It's from Handbook 2 (20.4.3). It just states that the presiding officer receives the sacrament first, but doesn't explain why. It also says the deacons can walk to their assigned areas before the officer takes the sacrament. I had thought it was some kind of failsafe measure for the presiding officer to ensure that the blessing was done properly before being passed to the congregation, but letting the deacons proceed beforehand kind of nullifies that.

New here, and here's my outsider view from my understanding.

The Bishop holds the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood in the ward. Hence, he is responsible and oversees (and approves) ALL Aaronic priesthood ordinances in the ward. It is based upon his approval or disapproval in regards to whether the ordinance was done correctly or not.

In regards to Stake Presidents, as the LDS church is one of Order, I believe it is probably because the Stake President hold the keys of the Stake in regards to the Melchezidek Priesthood. As such, he probably overseas the Bishop and their responsibilities (normally through high counselors instead of directly, but if he is actually at the meeting, or one of his counselors, it would default more towards direct presiding). I could see that in such an instance he would preside and hence the approval would default to the Stake President instead of the Bishop (but not entirely positive on that account).

In addition, the Bishop is the presiding authority of the meeting (or whomever is the one presiding). It is in his authority therefore to ensure that it flows correctly. By taking the sacrament first he is expressing his approval that the ordinance thus far has been conducted correctly.

[Obrien]

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?

To answer your serious questions - yes and yes.

Because I have a different outlook regarding what would be a more spiritually filling meeting, I must be belittled and my motives questioned? If I had a thinner skin, I'd report you. I've been warned for less offensive posts. Maybe by not reporting your comments and turning the other digital cheek, I'll get one of my own warnings expunged. Perhaps that's how forgiveness works in the cyber world.

[shadow]

I've had worse things said towards me via you dear angelic cough cough Obrien. And no, I've never reported you either.

[Obrien]

I'm a little sensitive to bring ratted on - I've picked up several warnings for not much lately.

When did I ever cough cough diss you?

[samizdat]

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?

=)) 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 need to see the movie Mobsters and Mormons. There is a classic example of when the Bishop's duties might be interrupted, and a counselor needs to take his spot. I know, not official, but funny movie none the less.

On the other hand I have seen instances here in Mexico of a counselor being called from inactivity from the Bishopric or even from a quorum presidency. They are invited to get their lives in order, and they have done much good.

[mirkwood]

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.

Wow...me too. Imagine that. We aren't in the same ward are we? ;)

[mirkwood]

Just my opinion. I find it revolting, this idea of showing reverence towards leaders and extra respect/loyalty/submission, but whatever

It's a sign of respect to a position that was ordained of God, not the man.

[Zathura]

Just my opinion. I find it revolting, this idea of showing reverence towards leaders and extra respect/loyalty/submission, but whatever

It's a sign of respect to a position that was ordained of God, not the man.

I understand.
But my opinion remains. Jesus didn't even want that man in the Bible to call him "good".

Now we have to stand when a general authority walks in, on the mission you can't enter a conference with a general authority without wearing your suit coat, can't take it off unless he says so.
I'm told we have to submit to these leaders.
It's not right to treat one man better than another man. Title doesn't change that.

Jesus wouldn't allow us to do these things.

[Stacy Oliver]

Just my opinion. I find it revolting, this idea of showing reverence towards leaders and extra respect/loyalty/submission, but whatever

It's a sign of respect to a position that was ordained of God, not the man.

I understand.
But my opinion remains. Jesus didn't even want that man in the Bible to call him "good".

Now we have to stand when a general authority walks in, on the mission you can't enter a conference with a general authority without wearing your suit coat, can't take it off unless he says so.
I'm told we have to submit to these leaders.
It's not right to treat one man better than another man. Title doesn't change that.

Jesus wouldn't allow us to do these things.

Except when people wanted to wash his feet.

[rewcox]

I understand.
But my opinion remains. Jesus didn't even want that man in the Bible to call him "good".

Now we have to stand when a general authority walks in, on the mission you can't enter a conference with a general authority without wearing your suit coat, can't take it off unless he says so.
I'm told we have to submit to these leaders.
It's not right to treat one man better than another man. Title doesn't change that.

Jesus wouldn't allow us to do these things.

Here is another post where I want to scratch my head. Did Jesus allow the people to get him a donkey to ride into Jerusalem with palms and such?

We don't worship our leaders, we do have some respect for them. You have some interesting conflictions.

[Zathura]

Just my opinion. I find it revolting, this idea of showing reverence towards leaders and extra respect/loyalty/submission, but whatever

It's a sign of respect to a position that was ordained of God, not the man.

I understand.
But my opinion remains. Jesus didn't even want that man in the Bible to call him "good".

Now we have to stand when a general authority walks in, on the mission you can't enter a conference with a general authority without wearing your suit coat, can't take it off unless he says so.
I'm told we have to submit to these leaders.
It's not right to treat one man better than another man. Title doesn't change that.

Jesus wouldn't allow us to do these things.

Except when people wanted to wash his feet.

It was the other way around
He washed other people's feet.
Jesus told Peter "you shall never wash my feet"
When Mary washed his feet, its part of an ordinance.that's where the church gets that part of the Second Endowment from. The wife washes the husbands feet in preparation for the resurrection.

[Zathura]

I understand.
But my opinion remains. Jesus didn't even want that man in the Bible to call him "good".

Now we have to stand when a general authority walks in, on the mission you can't enter a conference with a general authority without wearing your suit coat, can't take it off unless he says so.
I'm told we have to submit to these leaders.
It's not right to treat one man better than another man. Title doesn't change that.

Jesus wouldn't allow us to do these things.

Here is another post where I want to scratch my head. Did Jesus allow the people to get him a donkey to ride into Jerusalem with palms and such?

We don't worship our leaders, we do have some respect for them. You have some interesting conflictions.

Jesus rose into town on a Donkey as opposed to a warhorse that our great leader would be expected to ride, showing humility.
Jesus is the Savior of the world, the Messiah. How do you compare church leaders to him? Nobody compares to him.

He wouldn't allow us to call him "good". He wouldn't allow Peter to wash his feet, but instead washed Peters feet. This is the example he set