Simon Magus and Needing a Temple Recommend to Perform Ordinances

[Northwestcoug]

FTR, elbowski was just a typo. But I do sort of like it.

Nuh uh! You? Typo?

[Bo Diddley]

FTR, elbowski was just a typo. But I do sort of like it.

Stop monkeying around. We all know you were referring to someone on another web site with the el at the beginning.

[Sullyute]

Seriously? When the other option he is considering is to step attending altogether?

Then do what CJ suggested and take it to God. I think waup should just worship how he wants and leave the bishop out of it. That may be easier said than done in smaller wards than in a larger one.

I realize that Wuap's personality (being an open book) makes it harder for him to just ignore ignorant stuff leaders say, but I just don't see how telling his bishop he thinks he and his father-in-law are wrong is going to smooth things over.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Then do what CJ suggested and take it to God. I think waup should just worship how he wants and leave the bishop out of it. That may be easier said than done in smaller wards than in a larger one.

I realize that Wuap's personality (being an open book) makes it harder for him to just ignore ignorant stuff leaders say, but I just don't see how telling his bishop he thinks he and his father-in-law are wrong is going to smooth things over.

It depends how it is handled. He said he is considering leaving the church due to his local leaders. Why not try to have a simple honest conversation with the bishop to express concerns? Of course he can worship how he wants, but what you are suggesting seems like a passive-aggressive copout. And if the guy is far off the rails, a little pushback from the flock would be healthy in the long run.

[I.J. Reilly]

I think at this point I could write a small book of meanderings of thought in regard to authorities in the church. First real life introduction was a change in mission president halfway through. Day and night difference. Loving kind versus "loving" disciplinarian. Wasn't helped that the member of the area presidency over missionary work was also of the second type--but worse. I doubt I'll ever reconcile completely, but it no longer makes me raging angry.

A combination of things allows me to continue on my current path of activity. I've accepted a belief that the Lord does not direct His church in its daily operations. He occasionally directly works in His vineyard when required, but then sets the watchmen with instruction to care for the vineyard and retreats (see Jacob 5). If He was visibly involved daily it would likely violate the requirements of agency. The church has to perfect itself by mostly internal means. The Holy Spirit can help, but is constrained by the philosophies of men that have been traditionally accepted as doctrine (see the essay on blacks and the priesthood). I find it hard to accept that that essay would ever have needed to be written if He was directly involved in daily operations.

Lately, I've pondered on 1 Corinthians chapter 12. At church, it seems I've had lessons on gifts of the spirit, and lessons on the organization of the church. Both pull from this chapter, but are usually separate topics. But I think they have to go together. The different parts of the body are typically used to describe the different callings in the church, but lately I've thought that we do a disservice to only read it that way. We ignore that prior to the analogy of the body of the church, significant effort had just been made to explain the various gifts of the spirit and the end of the chapter pulls that part back in. So the hand, feet, head, eyes, ears, etc. are not only reference to different callings, but are also different gifts. Where that has led me is to a realization that I cannot expect someone who has the gift of faith to approach church life the same as someone who as the gift of knowledge. Leaders can very well have the gift of administration but lack the gift of wisdom or discernment. Verses 21 - 27 read completely differently when considered that way.

The church obviously still has a ways to go before as a body before it comprehends the more excellent way--too much criticizing and judgmental behaviors. To me the more excellent way means that we forgive one another our weaknesses and marvel and delight in one another's gifts. Hopefully we will someday accept that one who has the gift of critical thought and logic is not a faithless soul, but simply a vessel in which the manifestation of spiritual gifts are different and needed.

I've also accepted that some gifts allow the understanding of others who walk the path differently. Some do not. Some that don't also see their path as the only one which can be walked. When they have leadership roles, it can be trying for others with different gifts.

I'll stop rambling now.

Interesting observation re: One Corinthians Chapter 12. It's stuff like this that makes me at least browse through these threads.

And CJ apologizing and Wuap accepting the apology? Who knew the Savior had made his grand re-entry and lions and lambs were lying together.

[Pelado]

Share handbook 2 20.1.2 with you bishop / SP

...

20.1.2
Worthiness to Participate in an Ordinance or Blessing

Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling.

As guided by the Spirit and the instructions in the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.

A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice.

[Moliere]

...

I'll admit that I don't understand why acting as voice is any different than standing in the circle, but I won't complain since I think it's a great way to get more people to participate that otherwise wouldn't.

[Sullyute]

It depends how it is handled. He said he is considering leaving the church due to his local leaders. Why not try to have a simple honest conversation with the bishop to express concerns? Of course he can worship how he wants, but what you are suggesting seems like a passive-aggressive copout. And if the guy is far off the rails, a little pushback from the flock would be healthy in the long run.

Ok, sure, if your options are down to leaving the church or talking to your bishop, then talk to your bishop. I just think that doing the latter has a high probability of leading to the former.

[Green Monstah]

I'm not sure that I go to the bishop, especially if he's a hardliner. If you do, just phrase it in terms with, "I'm having a hard time understanding," and be patient with him.

[SandYFan]

Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood.

Does it make sense to prohibit a Melchizedek Priesthood holder from baptizing his children if he does not believe the tenets of the Church (divinity of Christ, calling of Joseph Smith)?

[MartyFunkhouser]

Ok, sure, if your options are down to leaving the church or talking to your bishop, then talk to your bishop. I just think that doing the latter has a high probability of leading to the former.

If I had a Bishop that I liked, I would talk to him rather than leave the church. If I had a Bishop that I didn't like or that was a hardliner, I would leave the church.

I my adult life, I would have had an open and honest discussion with 3 of the bishops that I've had. I wouldn't have said a damn word to about 4 of the bishops that I had.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Under what condition would that be a horrible approach?

And while we are at it, can I just say how much I dislike bitching about leadership roulette? Does anyone honestly expect perfect uniformity in human beings? Is there any organization on earth that enjoys perfect consistency? This is part of life. Get used to it.

Oh brother. No one is expecting "perfect consistency." If you think that is what the leadership roulette complaints amount to, it isn't worth even having this discussion.

I appreciate that you give every leader the benefit of the doubt and think that there aren't leaders that would react negatively to even sincere expressions of concern, disbelief, etc. I've had leaders that I wouldn't give that benefit of the doubt to. I've had leaders that I think were amazing and would give that benefit to.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh brother. No one is expecting "perfect consistency." If you think that is what the leadership roulette complaints amount to, it isn't worth even having this discussion.

I appreciate that you give every leader the benefit of the doubt and think that there aren't leaders that would react negatively to even sincere expressions of concern, disbelief, etc. I've had leaders that I wouldn't give that benefit of the doubt to. I've had leaders that I think were amazing and would give that benefit to.

That is not even close to what I said.

[Topper]

Oh brother. No one is expecting "perfect consistency." If you think that is what the leadership roulette complaints amount to, it isn't worth even having this discussion.

I appreciate that you give every leader the benefit of the doubt and think that there aren't leaders that would react negatively to even sincere expressions of concern, disbelief, etc. I've had leaders that I wouldn't give that benefit of the doubt to. I've had leaders that I think were amazing and would give that benefit to.

What is it that the two of you are arguing about?

[MartyFunkhouser]

That is not even close to what I said.

Really? You asked me, "Under what condition would that be a horrible approach?" It would be a bad approach in circumstances with a leader that would react negatively to a sincere expression of concerns.