- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald, I both cringed and laughed at that story. It drives me nuts when Pharisaical attidues rear their heads – but it’s a GREAT example of how many things work out with a little patience and “playing the system”. Sometimes, it just takes showing someone the alternatives to help them see that it’s ok to color outside the lines in cases like that. I have so many things that I shouldn’t say… so, I won’t. 😳 I’ll just add, having grown up in a “Packer Home”, this mentality comes with a steep cost to the emotional well-being of children. “Unwritten”, “unspoken”, “expectation”, “disappointment”, etc. is an emotional mine-field that no child should have to endure.
Tangentially, the baptism thing wrapped in the “that’s the way the church does it” happened as a fallout to my son’s recent baptism. My FIL was so bent about not being asked to baptize my son that he stewed for a week and finally couldn’t control his emotions and dumped his frustration on my DW. He insisted to her that, in the church, a family member should baptize if one is available… And, he just finished a three-year stint in the bishopric of his ward.
Sorry for the tone, this one is fresh…
😳 “Ought it not be Elizabeth and William and David?” It’s increasingly common for people to be registered with diminutives as their actual names…
Of the whole talk, I thought that sentence was the most troubling. Translation: “Ought we not make things appear other than they are?” I anxiously await the day we call our bishops and apostles (I know Brother Packer would that I ought not mention too frequently that title) either Boyd Packer and Tom Monson, then at least Brother Packer and Brother Monson or Brother Boyd and Brother Tom.
Being real and being one of the guys is a Good Thing.
Likewise, this talk has always bothered me. I actually think it might be the most significant factor contributing to what I view as an oppressive culture in the church, and it overnight it seemed to morph cultural traditions into quasi-official church policy. Elder Packer certainly knew the effect the talk would have when he gave it, and this concept of complete compliance seems perhaps to be the governing mission in his life. I don’t believe it’s been healthy for the church. A year or two ago I was at work until about 6pm then remembered that stake priesthood meeting was at 7. I drove straight to the stake center and got there just before it started. I was enjoying the meeting until one of the high councilors got up and gave his talk. He pretty much regurgitated Elder Packer’s famous address, and then went into his own lengthy diatribe about how wrong it is for man or boy to wear anything other than a white shirt to church. After he went on for 10 minutes on this single point, I looked down and noticed with horror that I was wearing a blue shirt! There were perhaps five or six of us there that night who were dressed “inappropriately” – including one investigator, a brand new convert, and a few other unlucky slobs like myself.
This is one unfortunate example of how the culture in the church gets mixed up with the doctrine, but it’s discouraging to me how often it happens. To make matters worse, the white-shirt-nazi is now my bishop!
It would certainly make it easier for me if the church would take a more liberal stance toward things like this and focus instead on some of the basic doctrines, like the ones taught by Jesus. Quite honestly the “white shirt issue” exposes an attitude of intolerance within the church – particularly among church leaders – that has been a major catalyst for my personal faith crisis. Not THE issue, but definitely one of them, and I can’t imagine I’m alone in feeling this way.
Fwiw, I have no problem with the “white shirt issue” – IF, AND ONLY IF, it is limited to what Elder Holland (I think) actually said in the talk he gave that addressed it. It’s the “white shirt Nazis” at the local level that take the “unwritten” applications and make them the standard at the local level. Frankly, I am positive it was that extremist attitude and application that prompted an apostle to have to give a talk about it – and that’s the most frustrating part for me. The second most frustrating part is that many now think that talk actually endorsed the extremist position – when all it said, in summary, is that the Church leadership wants to make the sacrament a more sacred ordinance in the eyes of the membership by treating it like the temple ordinances. Therefore, he asked that those who administer the ordinance wear a white shirt as a token of the nature of the covenant, modeling as closely as possible the reason why we wear white in the temple. However, he also said in no uncertain terms that this was not a command in all cases – that those who don’t own and can’t purchase white shirts should not be excluded from participation.
This is a great example of how the concept of an unwritten order of things can be abused, but, frankly, it’s not abused in the Church any more than in most other organizations. I get in trouble (or get looked at askance) fairly often in other settings for doing things differently than others, and almost always when it is mentioned openly to me it is an “unwritten order of things” that is cited, albeit not in those terms. The “unwritten order of things” is long-hand for “culture” – and there is degree of validity to not thumbing our noses constantly at the prevailing culture – to accepting to a degree the unwritten order of things in many siutations. The main problem is not the general concept, imo, but rather the over-zealous application of it by those on the other side of the line from us.
Finally, just to make you think:
Would you rather have everything be strictly regulated in writing – or be allowed to argue about the unwritten order of things?❗ abacus wrote:Likewise, this talk has always bothered me. I actually think it might be the most significant factor contributing to what I view as an oppressive culture in the church, and it overnight it seemed to morph cultural traditions into quasi-official church policy. Elder Packer certainly knew the effect the talk would have when he gave it, and this concept of complete compliance seems perhaps to be the governing mission in his life. I don’t believe it’s been healthy for the church…
It would certainly make it easier for me if the church would take a more liberal stance toward things like this and focus instead on some of the basic doctrines, like the ones taught by Jesus. Quite honestly the “white shirt issue” exposes an attitude of intolerance within the church – particularly among church leaders – that has been a major catalyst for my personal faith crisis. Not THE issue, but definitely one of them, and I can’t imagine I’m alone in feeling this way.
No you are not.
Old-Timer wrote:Would you rather have everything be strictly regulated in writing – or be allowed to argue about the unwritten order of things?
Good food for thought there Ray!
If “The Unwritten Order of Things” were actually written… I think I would have more problems. But much of this unwritten order is like Ray said, “culture”. Culture I can deal with. It is my prayer that the majority of other members in the Church can respect those of a different culture, a different order. Lets not intertwine culture and gospel. I think when we boil things down, this concept is a factor in some of the problems with the Church today.
Quote:it was determined that since the “ox was in the mire” that I could go ahead and bless the sacrament that week.
Hah! Of course, you know the phrase “ox in the mire” is a Mormon euphemism that actually doesn’t occur in the scriptures. The real expression is “ox or ass in a pit,” which is why always say “Well, our ass was in a pit, so we had to . . . ” Here’s the actual quote:
Quote:
Luke 14: 5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?Quote:But much of this unwritten order is like Ray said, “culture”. Culture I can deal with. It is my prayer that the majority of other members in the Church can respect those of a different culture, a different order. Lets not intertwine culture and gospel. I think when we boil things down, this concept is a factor in some of the problems with the Church today.
Hallelujah! I could not agree more. There has to be some elasticity in culture if we want to be a worldwide church.
Getting back to the white shirts discussion, a friend and I were discussing this issue from somewhat opposite viewpoints. He made the analogy that if you belong to a sports team, if you don’t wear the uniform, you can’t play that day. So, I want to respect (somewhat) the view that uniformity / unwritten order of things can create a sense of team, a sense of unity, a sense of belonging. All right, long enough pause for respect. My view (the opposite one really) is that when someone belongs, it’s because someone else doesn’t belong. That kind of unity is not universally accepting and puts the boundaries of belonging on something outward, non inward, and in some cases, it could be involuntary – there are folks who won’t “fit in” because they are too new, too poor, or too unaware of social norms to just coincidentally fit in. And why create artificial boundaries? It’s hard enough for people to connect and feel that they belong without making artificial norms to divide them. If you are the one who doesn’t fit in but wants to, you feel it very deeply. Why should we cause that angst in a place that should be the most accepting one on earth? (Yes, there are moral standards that might exclude people, but sins are inward and voluntary, not outward.) I suspect that those who view “the uniform of the priesthood” as a good thing begin with the assumption that complying is always voluntary – and in 95% of cases, I suppose it probably is. I just worry about the ones for whom it is not.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:it was determined that since the “ox was in the mire” that I could go ahead and bless the sacrament that week.
Hah! Of course, you know the phrase “ox in the mire” is a Mormon euphemism that actually doesn’t occur in the scriptures. The real expression is “ox or ass in a pit,” which is why always say “Well, our ass was in a pit, so we had to . . . ” Here’s the actual quote:
Quote:
Luke 14: 5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?Great! That is hilarious. I’ll be sure to correct “the brethern” the next time they “misuse” the phrase – hopefully during priesthood meeting
😆 😆 .I listen to Christian radio on the commute to and from work and there is a pastor I listen to (Gino Geraci) that always says, ” Legalism is when your opinion becomes my obligation”. Obviously, he is against legalism. This discussion of the “unwritten rules” very much brought this quote to my mind.
Sure, we remind the young men that they should wear white shirts in order to show respect while passing the Sacrament, but telling them that they aren’t worthy to serve because they have a colored shirt on, that irks me. I’ve seen it happen multiple times. We remind the YM that they should tuck their shirts in and look sharp, but I have never seen an un-tucked shirt or messy hair keep a Deacon from serving. Only the color of the shirt. Talk about an instance of someone’s opinion becoming obligation.
SMiLe
Quote:telling them that they aren’t worthy to serve because they have a colored shirt on, that irks me.
Absolutely! (I agree with the entire comment, but that statement, particularly, I like.)
I agree, dash. There should be a difference between reverence and respect and encouraging a person to strive for these, and unworthiness if not. It is just a matter of local leadership not knowing what to do or handle a person who doesn’t toe the line. All they can think of is…”well then, you’re not worthy.” To me, that is like telling my 11 yr old son, “just because I said so.” – when he was younger and couldn’t understand things…that was just the easiest way to handle it…but when he is older, it is just laziness on my part for not correctly teaching him principles.
That irks me too. But the church seems to have a long history of that.
My brother in law was not paying his tithing…and when his son turned 14, they wouldn’t allow him to ordain his son. Compare that to Pres. Packer’s talk this last conference. I don’t think it is a worthiness issue…it is just a local leadership issue, and because it is “unwritten” – you’ll get different versions of how it is done at the local level.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.