Stirring the pot at church

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

This is me stirring the pot...."This is so incredibly super duper important that we won't write it down!"

That's funny, but of course it's not what Elder Packer was saying.

Quote

I will be speaking about what I call the “unwritten order of things.” My lesson might be entitled “The Ordinary Things about the Church Which Every Member Should Know.” Although they are very ordinary things, they are, nevertheless, very important! We somehow assume that everybody knows all the ordinary things already. If you do know them, you must have learned them through observation and experience, for they are not written anywhere and they are not taught in classes. So, as we continue, if you are ones that know it all, be patient while I teach those who do not—and take a nap.

If you read the talk, you will see that many of these things are common sense (e.g. we don't aspire to callings), and others probably are written in today's leadership handbook (e.g. those presiding sit on the stand and not in the congregation).

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Jonah was indeed swallowed by a whale, but it was never said that he survived the ordeal while in the stomach. Perhaps God brought him back to life when he washed up on the beach. This isn’t a solid answer, but a plausible explanation to a “difficult” question that offers a view that isn’t common and makes the imagery more believable. This is really all most people want.

There are indication in scripture that Jonah was dead but brought back to life in dramatic fashion.  But there is a much bigger problem - Jonah was swallowed in the Mediterranean.  In order to swim from there to the destination the creature would have to swim around Africa into the Persian Gulf and a distance up a river.   There is not even a modern high speed water vehicle that can make that distance in the designated amount of time.  Obviously there is more to this story (there has to be) than what we are given in any literal interpretation of scripture.  There are details left out or should we say "Unanswered" or unanswerable.   Some think that miracles must be explainable.  I am of a different mind - I believe all miracles have intent that is not harmed by our understanding the truth of them.

 

The Traveler

 

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

To me passing to the Bishop first just confuses the teaching that God loves all of his children.   He doesn't love the Bishop more.

So, shall we randomly pick some other person for God to love more?  Maybe the organist?  The person sitting in the farthest corner?  One out in the hall, maybe?  Maybe n people to love more, where n is the number of people passing * the number of people who can reach the tray at the same time?

No, wait!  Stop the presses!  I have it!  We pass the trays all around, but no one can eat until a bell rings, then we all eat at once!  Ha!  No one gets more love.  Perfect.

Crud!  But even at that, someone will have to hold onto that little piece of bread longer than others.  Are they special or really unspecial for getting the bread first / having to hold it longest before eating?  And then there's the logistical problem of collecting all those cups.

What if we form a line, like the Catholics?  Then whoever wants it bad enough gets it first.  Please, people, no pushing and shoving.

OK, let's try this, manna from heaven.  Put the bread in dispensers that drop in sync from the ceiling.  Sure, the water dispensers may drip from time too time, but at least this way, we're all equally loved.  Yes, this is the only fair solution.  @Carborendum, we need an engineer too design this contraption.

Personally, I think someone who reads something into the bishop getting the Sacrament first needs something more important to do with their brain.

[Overwatch]

It really depends how my faculties are that day. If I am feeling upbeat I will welcome hard questions and let the members offer up suggestions, while also adding input. If I am exhausted I'll just say "yeah  that's so intersting but before I forget" and then I'll ask a question relevant to the class at hand. If it is something legitimately worth looking into I will say I don't know and get back to them the next week with an answer.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

So, shall we randomly pick some other person for God to love more?  Maybe the organist?  The person sitting in the farthest corner?  One out in the hall, maybe?  Maybe n people to love more, where n is the number of people passing * the number of people who can reach the tray at the same time?

No, wait!  Stop the presses!  I have it!  We pass the trays all around, but no one can eat until a bell rings, then we all eat at once!  Ha!  No one gets more love.  Perfect.

Crud!  But even at that, someone will have to hold onto that little piece of bread longer than others.  Are they special or really unspecial for getting the bread first / having to hold it longest before eating?  And then there's the logistical problem of collecting all those cups.

What if we form a line, like the Catholics?  Then whoever wants it bad enough gets it first.  Please, people, no pushing and shoving.

OK, let's try this, manna from heaven.  Put the bread in dispensers that drop in sync from the ceiling.  Sure, the water dispensers may drip from time too time, but at least this way, we're all equally loved.  Yes, this is the only fair solution.  @Carborendum, we need an engineer too design this contraption.

Personally, I think someone who reads something into the bishop getting the Sacrament first needs something more important to do with their brain.

I don't see any need to "love" anyone more.  Just pass the sacrament.  Start at the end of the pew and go.  No fanfare.  It worked in my BYU ward.  No one remembers who got passed to first.  They just passed.  No questions asked.

[Vort]

Just now, Lost Boy said:

I don't see any need to "love" anyone more.  Just pass the sacrament.  Start at the end of the pew and go.  No fanfare.  It worked in my BYU ward.  No one remembers who got passed to first.  They just passed.  No questions asked.

But the problem is that someone gets the sacrament first. That isn't fair. It means God loves them more! At least, that seems to be the theory of those who thinks the bishop shouldn't get the sacrament first.

[Lost Boy]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There are indication in scripture that Jonah was dead but brought back to life in dramatic fashion.  But there is a much bigger problem - Jonah was swallowed in the Mediterranean.  In order to swim from there to the destination the creature would have to swim around Africa into the Persian Gulf and a distance up a river.   There is not even a modern high speed water vehicle that can make that distance in the designated amount of time.  Obviously there is more to this story (there has to be) than what we are given in any literal interpretation of scripture.  There are details left out or should we say "Unanswered" or unanswerable.   Some think that miracles must be explainable.  I am of a different mind - I believe all miracles have intent that is not harmed by our understanding the truth of them.

 

The Traveler

 

For better or for worse, I believe many stories in the bible to just be stories.  

Is it better to have faith in a story that didn't happen or believe it didn't happen, but understand what it was the story was trying to tell us?

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

But the problem is that someone gets the sacrament first. That isn't fair. It means God loves them more! At least, that seems to be the theory of those who thinks the bishop shouldn't get the sacrament first.

could be.

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Do you have one or more members that are not afraid to ask the hard questions in Sunday School, priesthood, RS meetings?

This question would be better stated, "Do we have members who want to be difficult rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"? Or, "Do we have members who would rather play in the realm of theoretical questions, rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"?

Hard questions are excellent, when they provide an opportunity to edify the class and that which doesn't distract from the learning (or the topic being discussed). Theoretical questions are fine as long as people recognize they are theoretical.

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

How did Noah get all the animals on the ark?  How about dinosaurs?

Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first?

Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish?

OK, maybe these aren't really hard questions, but they are questions that go against the establishment.  How do you handle these questions as an instructor?  Are you the type that might ask a similar type question?

True, not hard questions. I answer these types of questions honestly. No, I am not the type of person to ask these questions as they aren't important.  The scriptures specify Noah built an ark, whether or not all, 90%, 80%, 70%, etc.. of the animals fit on the ark doesn't provide a edifying discussion. Dinosaurs, pre-adamites, etc... All theoretical that haven't been revealed.

Jonah was swallowed by a whale. The Lord creates the earth. The Lord causes four people (that we know of) who are able to live upon this earth with translated bodies, but couldn't have a whale swallow a man - OK, sure.

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

If something about the gospel doesn't quite make sense, are you the type that would ask the question in Sunday School, if lesson was on that particular topic, or would you wait to ask a bishop?  Or would you just not ask the question and let it go?

Not sure what you mean here. If the question pertains to the topic, and helps clarify or edify the discussion, then ask the question in Sunday School. Why bother the bishop with something we can search the scriptures, search the prophets, and receive revelation ourselves?

If the question doesn't pertain to the topic, why even ask? Study it out, theorize, and then go to the Lord or wait for the Lord to reveal it.

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

For me, it would depend on the question.  Is it really pertinent?  If you are discussing that God is no respecter of persons, I might ask the question about passing the sacrament to the bishop first.

Sacrament passing to the bishop, as presiding authority, doesn't confirm or negate God is a respecter of persons. God is definitely a respecter of office and callings. The bishop doesn't always receive the sacrament first. If the stake president is attending, the stake president receives the sacrament. If a general authority, seventy, is attending and is presiding he receives the sacrament first. If an apostle is attending he receives the sacrament first. If an apostle and the prophet are attending a sacrament meeting the prophet receives the sacrament first. Really not a difficult question, and doesn't pertain to respecter of persons.

Throughout scripture God has very much shown he is a respecter of the office to which those are called.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This question would be better stated, "Do we have members who want to be difficult rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"? Or, "Do we have members who would rather play in the realm of theoretical questions, rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"?

 

 

I agree that the main focus during classes/meetings should be increasing the Spirit. 100% agree. 

My hope is that members who do have "tough questions" find a platform/area to ask them. 

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This question would be better stated, "Do we have members who want to be difficult rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"? Or, "Do we have members who would rather play in the realm of theoretical questions, rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"?

Hard questions are excellent, when they provide an opportunity to edify the class and that which doesn't distract from the learning (or the topic being discussed). Theoretical questions are fine as long as people recognize they are theoretical.

So the sincerity of the question makes or breaks it. A sincere, on-topic question is welcome 99.9% of the time. A question designed to show off how smart (or insightful, or irreverent) the questioner is will be inappropriate 100% of the time.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

So the sincerity of the question makes or breaks it. A sincere, on-topic question is welcome 99.9% of the time. A question designed to show off how smart (or insightful, or irreverent) the questioner is will be inappropriate 100% of the time.

@Vort, I can say straight up that you mean this. Goodness knows I've asked you many, many questions (in private and on the forums) that might be tough to answer or arise uncomfortable thoughts in some people, and you've always answered them with no defensiveness or questioning my motives. 

[Anddenex]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

So the sincerity of the question makes or breaks it. A sincere, on-topic question is welcome 99.9% of the time. A question designed to show off how smart (or insightful, or irreverent) the questioner is will be inappropriate 100% of the time.

I would specify the sincerity of the question is the most important, and the sincerity of the question (even if off-topic) can still be answered, or as others have suggested specifying answering the question after the meeting so the questions doesn't distract from an edifying discussion of the topic.

I would think, sincere questions are 100% welcome (even tough questions as @MormonGator mentioned), as long as the question is sincere and not trying to prove a point. In that light, I would agree anytime we are trying to show how smart we are, how insightful we are, or how irreverent we can be these are 100% of the time inappropriate.

I think though I am understanding correctly what you mean by 99.9% and if so, then yes I agree there also.

[Lost Boy]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This question would be better stated, "Do we have members who want to be difficult rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"? Or, "Do we have members who would rather play in the realm of theoretical questions, rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"?

Hard questions are excellent, when they provide an opportunity to edify the class and that which doesn't distract from the learning (or the topic being discussed). Theoretical questions are fine as long as people recognize they are theoretical.

True, not hard questions. I answer these types of questions honestly. No, I am not the type of person to ask these questions as they aren't important.  The scriptures specify Noah built an ark, whether or not all, 90%, 80%, 70%, etc.. of the animals fit on the ark doesn't provide a edifying discussion. Dinosaurs, pre-adamites, etc... All theoretical that haven't been revealed.

Jonah was swallowed by a whale. The Lord creates the earth. The Lord causes four people (that we know of) who are able to live upon this earth with translated bodies, but couldn't have a whale swallow a man - OK, sure.

Not sure what you mean here. If the question pertains to the topic, and helps clarify or edify the discussion, then ask the question in Sunday School. Why bother the bishop with something we can search the scriptures, search the prophets, and receive revelation ourselves?

If the question doesn't pertain to the topic, why even ask? Study it out, theorize, and then go to the Lord or wait for the Lord to reveal it.

Sacrament passing to the bishop, as presiding authority, doesn't confirm or negate God is a respecter of persons. God is definitely a respecter of office and callings. The bishop doesn't always receive the sacrament first. If the stake president is attending, the stake president receives the sacrament. If a general authority, seventy, is attending and is presiding he receives the sacrament first. If an apostle is attending he receives the sacrament first. If an apostle and the prophet are attending a sacrament meeting the prophet receives the sacrament first. Really not a difficult question, and doesn't pertain to respecter of persons.

Throughout scripture God has very much shown he is a respecter of the office to which those are called.

 

No, I am not asking if you have trouble makers.  But rather not just taking the typical sunday school question and answer and perhaps giving it more thought.  

Does asking whether Jonah actually was swallowed by a fish lead to a bad gospel discussion?  No, not always.  I think it can lead to a good discussion.  It kind of depends a bit on how it is brought up and how the instructor handles it.

And no, I don't believe the story of Jonah.  It doesn't make any sense to me....  at least not the part being swallowed by a fish.

[Guest MormonGator]

The problem is escalated when some members act over defensive.

If I say "Polygamy." Some (key word, some. No one here. Some.) members will respond with "Yeah? Yeah, so what? You got a problem with that? Want to fight about it?! Huh? Huh?" Or if someone says "Hey, I heard of this podcast named "Mormon Stories. What's that about?" And then you (generic!) jump up and down  and throw things at the wall-it just escalates the problem. Again,  no one here is doing that. Except @Anddenex. When I asked him about him about the King Follett sermon he punched me in the face. Dude has some serious anger issues. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by MormonGator

[zil]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

"Yeah? Yeah, so what? You got a problem with that? Want to fight about it?! Huh? Huh?"

They're just jealous of your compound.

[Anddenex]

42 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

No, I am not asking if you have trouble makers.  But rather not just taking the typical sunday school question and answer and perhaps giving it more thought.  

This is why I mentioned the other question regarding theoretical questions that do not give edifying thought to the discussion. Theoretical questions aren't always from trouble makers, and which is why I specified, "Theoretical questions are fine as long as people recognize they are theoretical."

Quote

Does asking whether Jonah actually was swallowed by a fish lead to a bad gospel discussion?  No, not always.  I think it can lead to a good discussion.  It kind of depends a bit on how it is brought up and how the instructor handles it.

And no, I don't believe the story of Jonah.  It doesn't make any sense to me....  at least not the part being swallowed by a fish.

These are great questions/discussions during ministering visits, or with friends outside of the doctrinal class. I am not sure how this will lead to a good discussion during a doctrinal class. This question is, "Well, I don't agree with scripture (canon scripture) here, and I am going to give my own interpretation and belief on it and see if we can have a great discussion." This type of question will deter the Spirit and will not edify class members.

Outside of church, sure, I can totally see how good discussions are able to result from this type of question.

Fish swallow fish, and can swallow fish up to 50% or more their body size. It isn't hard to see how a whale that is 60ft or more (if we use Blue Whale 90ft) could swallow a human male that is 6ft. God is easily able to allow a whale to swallow a man, and is able to keep that man alive through the process.

It doesn't make sense how God has done a lot of what is described, none-the-less, he still accomplished it.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

When I was young, I believed (was told, probably) that we pass sacrament to the bishop first out of respect and deference to him. This rubbed me wrong even as a deacon, since even as a youth I realized that the sacrament is not to be used to honor people. So -- and I'm ashamed of my youthful rebelliousness -- I would often try to hurry up and pass to someone else first before the bishop, just because. Stick it to The Man, and all that.

Of course, there is a good reason to offer the sacrament first to the bishop (or whoever is in charge of the meeting). The ordinance is done under his auspices; he approves the performance of the ordinance or directs it to be redone. It's not a matter of honoring the man, or even the office. It's a matter of the president presiding.

FWIW, a show of respect in the church is not for the one being shown respect. It is for the ones showing the respect. 

[Anddenex]

41 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The problem is escalated when some members act over defensive.

Yes, or when some members try to ask questions that really aren't relevant.

Quote

If I say "Polygamy." Some (key word, some. No one here. Some.) members will respond with "Yeah? Yeah, so what? You got a problem with that? Want to fight about it?! Huh? Huh?" Or if someone says "Hey, I heard of this podcast named "Mormon Stories. What's that about?" And then you (generic!) jump up and down  and throw things at the wall-it just escalates the problem. @Anddenex

Hot topics should be approached with caution, and this is where I agree members are able to act overly defensive. This scripture I love, "That they may be perfected in the understanding of their ministry, in theory, in principle, and in doctrine, in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God on the earth, the keys of which kingdom have been conferred upon you."

I personally feel, we could have some very insightful gospel lessons that allow "theory" along with principle and doctrine; however, I would be concerned that some of these classes then would become nothing but theory and thus we would loose out on the Spirit.

41 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Again,  no one here is doing that. Except @Anddenex. When I asked him about him about the King Follett sermon he punched me in the face. Dude has some serious anger issues. 

Now your just being rude, I am going to go to my room, fall on my bed, and sulk. (Sorry, forgot to add the - for sacrasm ) I understood you were playing, or were you now...hmmm.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Anddenex

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Do you have one or more members that are not afraid to ask the hard questions in Sunday School, priesthood, RS meetings?

How did Noah get all the animals on the ark?  How about dinosaurs?

Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first?

Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish?

OK, maybe these aren't really hard questions, but they are questions that go against the establishment.  How do you handle these questions as an instructor?  Are you the type that might ask a similar type question?

If something about the gospel doesn't quite make sense, are you the type that would ask the question in Sunday School, if lesson was on that particular topic, or would you wait to ask a bishop?  Or would you just not ask the question and let it go?

For me, it would depend on the question.  Is it really pertinent?  If you are discussing that God is no respecter of persons, I might ask the question about passing the sacrament to the bishop first.

If you know it's "stirring the pot" think of a way to ask the question that doesn't, and that allows you to honestly ask it charitably. “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me... Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away. Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine. …become as a little child* …and become as a little child…” (3 Nephi 11: 29-38)

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, a show of respect in the church is not for the one being shown respect. It is for the ones showing the respect. 

True, but not really relevant. The sacrament is not the appropriate venue to demonstrate respect and appreciation for our mortal leaders.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Hot topics should be approached with caution, and this is where I agree members are able to act overly defensive.

Right, we agree. 

Remember though (and this isn't directed to you @Anddenex)  that some members/investigators/non member friends may not understand what hot topics are. IE-If I say "Well, what about this book, No Man Knows my History...." I may not know that book is controversial. I remember mentioning a book on this forum (not that one) that I didn't know got a very negative reaction in the LDS world. Luckily, no one here jumped up and down. Like I said before several times, almost no one on this forum is super defensive.  But if I asked about it in the priesthood classes I might have gotten a different response. 

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

That's funny, but of course it's not what Elder Packer was saying.

If you read the talk, you will see that many of these things are common sense (e.g. we don't aspire to callings), and others probably are written in today's leadership handbook (e.g. those presiding sit on the stand and not in the congregation).

I can't help but wonder if I'd stir the pot less if instead I smoked the pot?

 

EDIT: This is not an endorsement of smoking pot...which, political opinions about legalization aside, I believe to be a flat-out stupid thing to do.

Edited September 17, 2018 by MarginOfError

[Anddenex]

Just now, MarginOfError said:

I can't help but wonder if I'd stir the pot less if instead I smoked the pot?

No, because you would be high while stirring the pot.😜 

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I can't help but wonder if I'd stir the pot less if instead I smoked the pot?

Join me in Seattle and you can find out.