Culture Traditions verses Doctrine

[Vort]

Even I wouldn't recommend it, but I would recognize that if everyone there was actually focusing on what they were supposed to be focusing on, it wouldn't matter if they were wearing any of those things, or none of them.

It would matter a great deal if their bishop had instructed them not to perform the ordinances in the nude or in their swim trunks. Which, of course, is the entire point.

[Guest]

I ask again, does anyone have personal experience with someone recently being denied the opportunity to officiate in the sacrament based on the color of their shirt? It still seems like a lot of shadow boxing to me.

[skippy740]

See my post #51. It was some time ago, but that was personal for the family. My father does regret his actions.

I haven't seen anything recently in my ward(s). I've seen Deacons pass the sacrament with blue shirts and I didn't hear anything about it.

[skippy740]

Any choir or other musical group I was in asked that we wear a uniform, whether it was white top/black bottom, a robe, or a purchased/rented uniform, for performances. We were performing as one. . . as a group. It wouldn't have mattered whether our robes, for instance, were silver or red or green, it was that we all wore the same and were united in our appearance, and thus no one stood out. I guess I should have tried harder to feel oppressed by that.

A choir is a performing ensemble and matching appearances are part of it.

I would think that if someone had a financial issue, they might not be participating in the choir, or some kind of arrangement could be made.

That was my point in post #75. If a priesthood holder does NOT have a white shirt, and it's the Bishop imposing the rule, then it would fall to the Bishop to ensure that every Aaronic priesthood holder has a white shirt to fulfill their duty under the direction of the Bishop.

1 Nephi 3:7

I will go and do the things which the [bishop] hath [recommended], for I know that the [bishop] giveth no [recommendation] unto the [Aaronic Priesthood], save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he [recommended] them.

[Guest]

I would suspect that if it was very important to a bishop that the sacrament be passed in all white shirts, and one of his charges couldn't afford a white shirt, he'd make sure they were provided with one.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon skippy740. I hope you've been doing well! :)

I like your point.

Does it also mean that the Bishop is also responsible to ensure that EVERY Aaronic Priesthood holder has a white shirt?

If a boy is worthy, but unable to perform his priesthood duties because of a rule the Bishop is imposing, the sin would be on the Bishop, right?

The handbook actually addresses this and directs the bishops to take into consideration a young man's financial situation.

This was quoted a few pages back, but I'll quote it again to answer your questions:

"Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church" (HB 2, sec. 20.4.1, para. 5; emphasis added).

It could mean that the bishop ensures everyone has white shirts if the bishop really feels strongly about it. I don't think a young man will be held accountable for not doing his duties if the bishop has imposed rules the young man cannot fulfil. Then again, I don't believe this rises to the level where any sin would be assigned to the bishop either.

Regards,

Finrock

[skippy740]

Must not be important. I've been in Primary for 3 years and has never heard this taught there either. So, I have 2 kids that have been baptized without knowing anything about it. And I've never encountered it in any missionary discussion or new member discussion or temple prep classes, etc. etc... so, I suspect converts never got taught this.

If the Church want to uphold this tradition, they're not succeeding in my neck of the woods.

I suspect that a lot of these 'traditions' were rarely taught in actual Sunday School/Priesthood - at least for the past 20 years or so.

Most of these were probably taught by families who have many generations back of faithful church members. These things were probably taught in family home evening to help bring out an additional aspect to the Gospel.

Everyone seems to love a rumor that is passed down through generations. Kinda like a "mystery of the Gospel".

Because it's taught from 'father to son', it is well regarded.

Of course, we can still read in the scriptures about the "traditions of our fathers".

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Eowyn. I hope you are happy and well! :)

I ask again, does anyone have personal experience with someone recently being denied the opportunity to officiate in the sacrament based on the color of their shirt? It still seems like a lot of shadow boxing to me.

In my ward we don't have enough active Aaronic priesthood holders in order for the Aaronic priesthood to take care of the sacrament on their own. This means that the Elders and High Priest need to assist with sacrament every Sunday.

My bishop has refused to allow me to bless or pass the sacrament because I was not wearing a white shirt.

Regards,

Finrock

[beefche]

My current bishop is one who wants all priesthood to wear white shirt/ties. All the men/boys know this. And I am aware of one family who didn't/couldn't get a white shirt for their priesthood boy. A white shirt was provided for him to wear to church services and performing ordinances.

[estradling75]

I ask again, does anyone have personal experience with someone recently being denied the opportunity to officiate in the sacrament based on the color of their shirt? It still seems like a lot of shadow boxing to me.

Yes... Working with two different perspective elders. My bishop was working with them and they reached the point were the bishop felt it was time for them to pass the sacrament. One came in a dark blue dress shirt and the other was without a tie. Both didn't pass that time but came back the next time ready and passed the sacrament.

[skippy740]

Finrock,

In my opinion, because the Bishop is considered to be the "Father of the Ward", this verse can be likened unto this situation:

D&C 68:25

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

If I am worthy to exercise my priesthood duties, and my Bishop doesn't allow me to perform that duty, it is on the head of the Bishop.

No, it's not a sin of commission. It's a sin of potentially unrighteous dominion - no matter how well intentioned.

D&C 121:34-43

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

You may think that this is a wild stretch... but it's the LITTLE things that can add up to a bigger problem.

[Guest]

Thanks for answering, guys.

[estradling75]

Finrock,

No, it's not a sin of commission. It's a sin of potentially unrighteous dominion - no matter how well intentioned.

You may think that this is a wild stretch... but it's the LITTLE things that can add up to a bigger problem.

Do note that the wild stretches and the LITTLE thing adding up works both ways. While the Culture can be misconstrued as doctrine by the build up of little things... Apostasy also can build up with little rebellions... The oh I don't need to follow 'this direction' because it is unimportant, it doesn't really reflect my faith, its not doctrine.

Its been my experience that the little things add up... No matter what they are

[skippy740]

I appreciate that point, I really do.

I suppose the next part of my own question is: How does a Bishop tell the brother who wants to do his duty, that his attire isn't appropriate... without causing offense?

I suppose what I'm asking is how is tradition enforced without the expense of someone being offended... whether intended or not?

I'm thinking of a new convert, who is EXCITED about the gospel and about exercising his priesthood duties to pass or bless the sacrament. But he's wearing a blue shirt.

Now, personally, if I were a Bishop encouraging white shirts... I would let it slide one week and afterwards, request that he wear a white shirt going forward.

But that's me.

Would Bishops actually ask someone to NOT perform their priesthood duty and return to their seats in the congregation?

How do they keep from that person from feeling embarrassed?

[beefche]

They aren't asked to pass the sacrament. At least that is my observation in my ward.

The bishop teaches this to the Quorum leaders and they then teach the others that in our ward, white shirts are worn. Plus, our ward is aware of financial needs of members and that may be brought up in council.

[skippy740]

They aren't asked to pass the sacrament. At least that is my observation in my ward.

The bishop teaches this to the Quorum leaders and they then teach the others that in our ward, white shirts are worn. Plus, our ward is aware of financial needs of members and that may be brought up in council.

And that's fair. So, the instruction is given in the quorum, or after a new quorum member is ordained to the priesthood... so it doesn't become an issue before Sacrament services?

I'm thinking of 5 minutes before Sacrament meeting, and the new convert in his blue shirt is sitting with the Deacons waiting for the meeting to begin.

Does someone talk to him so that he'll feel comfortable in returning to his seat with his family and allow someone with a white shirt to fulfill the duty?

I just wonder what and how you say this without causing ill-feelings.

My only thought is to ask another priesthood holder to please help. You take the other brother quietly and say something like:

"I want to thank you for your willingness to serve. However, to respect the sanctity of this ordinance, the Bishop has asked that all those officiating in the sacrament to wear white shirts. Can we count on you for next week?"

[Saguaro]

They aren't asked to pass the sacrament.

From the handbook: Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate.

How do we reconcile these two statements? If priesthood holders are not asked to pass the sacrament just becuase they are not wearing white shirts, isn't that contrary to the handbook's instructions? By only asking those wearing white shirts, don't white shirts become a requirement?

[skippy740]

The only way I can reconcile the statement is with this:

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/introduction?lang=eng

Leaders also learn their duties by studying the instructions in Church handbooks. These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply while seeking the guidance of the Spirit.

These instruction books are to be helpers to those in presiding authority. They don't remove the authority of the Bishop to make decisions.

I would think that it would have to be a problem in order to search out the handbook and then seek personal revelation. I would hope that priesthood leaders always search the handbook and then gain clarity through prayer on how to best work and preside over their ward.

[beefche]

We have enough priesthood holders in our ward who wear white shirts. No one just sits on the pew to pass the sacrament. Each boy/man is asked specifically by the priest (or if a priest isn't present, then usually by the YM president) to pass the sacrament.

The one time that I remember a family who had a boy who didn't wear a white shirt, it was because of finances. However, he was provided a white shirt which he faithfully wore to church each time after he received it (which was before his 12th birthday).

Yes, there is a risk in making it seem as "doctrine", but my bishop teaches the symbolism behind it. I believe he uses the confernece talk by Elder Holland to teach (I could be wrong on that, but I know he really likes Elder Holland).

[Just_A_Guy]

From the handbook: Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate.

How do we reconcile these two statements? If priesthood holders are not asked to pass the sacrament just becuase they are not wearing white shirts, isn't that contrary to the handbook's instructions? By only asking those wearing white shirts, don't white shirts become a requirement?

Semantics cut both ways, though. For example, a bishop could say "I am asking, as a token of obedience/respect for the ordinance, that the AP holders wear white shirts", and then reject the blue-shirted deacons not because of the blue shirts per se, but for the willfully disobedient attitude manifest by the decision to wear the blue shirt in spite of the bishop's counsel to the contrary. Bishop can thus justify himself as being in perfect compliance with the CHI.

That's why the spirit of the law is so much better than trying to parse the letter. For all the legalism, I think we could probably agree on what that is: AP holders should quit looking for loopholes and make a sincere, good-faith effort to obtain white shirts and wear them when passing the sacrament; and leadership should be somewhat charitable towards those who have not yet succeeded in that effort.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

No one just sits on the pew to pass the sacrament. Each boy/man is asked specifically by the priest (or if a priest isn't present, then usually by the YM president) to pass the sacrament.

I've never seen that done in any of my wards. That's interesting!

[estradling75]

From the handbook: Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate.

How do we reconcile these two statements? If priesthood holders are not asked to pass the sacrament just becuase they are not wearing white shirts, isn't that contrary to the handbook's instructions? By only asking those wearing white shirts, don't white shirts become a requirement?

We reconcile them with the understanding that the bishop is the one that holds the keys for the administration of the ward and has the final say. If he does something different then its either because he doesn't know (and he is strongly encouraged to read the handbooks). Or he is choosing different. In the choosing different case then any correction(if need) becomes a matter for the Stake Presidency or higher.

[beefche]

I've never seen that done in any of my wards. That's interesting!

I don't know the reason behind it, but I suspect it is to avoid someone either feeling left out or to avoid someone who normally passes the sacrament who may be unworthy to do so.

I know that the quorums have regular meetings and I suspect that some of the boys are asked during that time because I don't always notice the asking, although I have seen some deacons asked while sitting with their families. But, there are Sundays when we don't have enough Aaronic priesthood, so Melchezidek priesthood are asked--those are specifically asked by the priest or YM president.

[Vort]

I've never seen that done in any of my wards. That's interesting!

In my ward, it is normally the deacons quorum presidents who manage the task. If there are not enough deacons when the meeting is about to start and the quorum presidents have not taken care of it, usually a priest (occasionally a teacher) will take care of getting people. I have sometimes seen the Young Men's president or one of his counselors doing this, as well.

[skippy740]

It would seem to solve a few problems before they become problems - just like my scenarios would outline.