cesc101 Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) sorry duplication Edited November 4, 2012 by cesc101
Freedom Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 You are correct - it was the position. Of executive secretary. My bad, I just confirmed it with him.Cheers.Executve secretary is also a stake calling
Freedom Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 The point is there can be someone called and some one doing to work.Would it ever be appropriate for an elder qurom to have a sister assigned to teach and elders qurom class once a month?Would be ever be acceptable to have a man on the young women's presidency, or a women on the young men's?There are lots of ways we could do things even with in the current structure that would be considered against the normal system that would be compatible with the current framework.A woman can be invited to teach a lesson to a priesthood quorum but they cannot be called as a teacher. The EQ pres calls the teachers for his quorum and he can only call people under his stewardship and this is restricted to elders. The bishop does not call Melchizedek quorum teachers. A man cannot be called to serve in the YW program, nor can a woman be called to serve with the YM. The activities are too intimate.
Freedom Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 I have to laugh at those who cite the CHI for the proposition that something CANNOT be done. (1) They haven't read the handbook which anticipates personal revelation within one's calling ---- the handbook is good place to start and should inform any differences. (2) they haven't lived in a ward/branch where doing things the normal way is simply impossible and where leaders have to do the best they can to help the work progress (with lots of innovation).The handbook is quite clear - a woman cannot be called to a priesthood calling and a man cannot be called to a women's auxiliary. Assignments can be given but certain offices are very restricted.
Freedom Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) (forgive my wide brush painting here...,) but doesn't the Mission President hold "Priesthood keys"?So why not WML?In a ward, priesthood administrative keys are held by 4 people: the Bishop, Elders Quorum President, Teachers Quorum President and Deacons Quorum President. The Ward Mission Leader functions under the keys or priesthood direction of the Bishop as are the Sunday School President, Young Mens president and all other auxiliaries in the ward.I might add this example: the ward mission leader does not have the authority to authorize any priesthood ordinances such as baptism. A child of record is baptized under the direction of the bishop, a convert is baptized under the direction of the mission president. This is because the ward mission leader does not hold the keys. Edited November 4, 2012 by Freedom
Sleeper Cell Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 The point is there can be someone called and some one doing to work.Would it ever be appropriate for an elder qurom to have a sister assigned to teach and elders qurom class once a month?When I was a priesthood instructor, I got approval for a sister to teach a lesson to our high priest group. After reading the assigned lesson manual chapter on the relief society, it occurred to me that it would be particularly idiotic for me (of all people) to teach such a lesson to a group of men when there were so many relief society sisters who were far more knowledgeable about the subject (and far more experienced in teaching it). After getting the necessary approvals from the appropriate priesthood and relief society leaders, I met with the sister whom the relief society president selected. My only advice was that she concentrate on what she wished the brethren understood about relief society, rather than on what they already understood.I do not advocate calling a sister as a regular priesthood instructor. I do advocate asking different sisters to teach a priesthood lesson several times a year on an irregular, ad hoc basis, but not so often that it becomes routine. One of the major advantages of having a sister occasionally teach a priesthood lesson is that it promotes “thinking outside the box.” Should such lessons become routine, we would simply have a bigger box.Would be ever be acceptable to have a man on the young women's presidency, or a women on the young men's?I suppose that it would be acceptable if the program could not function otherwise.There are lots of ways we could do things even with in the current structure that would be considered against the normal system that would be compatible with the current framework.I agree. Although I am hardly a feminist, nor do I believe that women will ever hold the priesthood (at least not in this life and probably not in the eternities), I believe that we can learn much about the priesthood by rethinking whether certain callings really require the priesthood or is it simply tradition or policy (inspired or otherwise). Besides, if I were to learn more about the priesthood, there is the (remote) possibility that I might change my mind about whether women will ever hold the priesthood. 1
cinepro Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 A bishop can no more call a women to be a ward mission leader than he can call a man to be a primary president.So, you're saying a Bishop can call a woman to be a ward mission leader? 1
ERMD Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 You are correct - it was the position. Of executive secretary. My bad, I just confirmed it with him.Cheers.This was an unwise move on many levels. In addition to what has been discussed here, the opportunity for at least the appearance of impropriety is quite high. A bishop and his executive secretary communicate privately with regularity. This opens the door for obvious potential problems.
Duncan Posted November 4, 2012 Author Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) I have to laugh at those who cite the CHI for the proposition that something CANNOT be done. (1) They haven't read the handbook which anticipates personal revelation within one's calling ---- the handbook is good place to start and should inform any differences. (2) they haven't lived in a ward/branch where doing things the normal way is simply impossible and where leaders have to do the best they can to help the work progress (with lots of innovation).that's my beef as well, if the CHI doesn't say not to do something then obviously they don't care or hadn't thought of it so why not do it if need be? Like it doesn't say about who has to be married for callings like a Primary Pres. as I recall (this was an issue some years ago in our ward-basically someone wasn't called just because she wasn't married and I raised holy heck about it to no avail) Edited November 4, 2012 by Duncan
Freedom Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 So, you're saying a Bishop can call a woman to be a ward mission leader?No because a primary president is a calling reserved for women
Bikeemikey Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 Executve secretary is also a stake callingWell that was the one.
Bikeemikey Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 This was an unwise move on many levels. In addition to what has been discussed here, the opportunity for at least the appearance of impropriety is quite high. A bishop and his executive secretary communicate privately with regularity. This opens the door for obvious potential problems.Yeah - she was in her late 60s and my dad was mid 30s... Not sure the whole using a calling to increase chances of sexual impropriety really was a factor - ill ask him though.Worked well... After three phood holders proved totally useless she fulfilled the calling flawlessly for the next 5 years.
Bikeemikey Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 No because a primary president is a calling reserved for womenWhy??
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 (forgive my wide brush painting here...,) but doesn't the Mission President hold "Priesthood keys"? So why not WML?Yes, but he was speaking of "Ward Mission Leader"...not the same.
ERMD Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 Yeah - she was in her late 60s and my dad was mid 30s... Not sure the whole using a calling to increase chances of sexual impropriety really was a factor - ill ask him though.Worked well... After three phood holders proved totally useless she fulfilled the calling flawlessly for the next 5 years.Stake Presidents usually do not object for no reason.YMMV
Bikeemikey Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Stake Presidents usually do not object for no reason.YMMVWell the stake president didn't object to the final formulation, which was call a priesthood holder and have the wife do the work.Are we really a church that would rather have an incompetent man rather than a competent women in the position. Edited November 5, 2012 by Bikeemikey
ERMD Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 That question is not up to the Church, but rather to the individual being called.We may be called to our salvation, or to our condemnation. It is our choice.
Bikeemikey Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 That question is not up to the Church, but rather to the individual being called.We may be called to our salvation, or to our condemnation. It is our choice.No one will be condemned for accepting a calling from their church leader.
Storm Rider Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 No one will be condemned for accepting a calling from their church leader.You might want to go back to the Bible and review the parables on lazy servants and how their lord treated them. God did not create this world for our personal amusement and is tolerant of us wasting what has been given. There is a price for disobedience, poor stewardship, and rebellion against the Master.
Duncan Posted November 5, 2012 Author Posted November 5, 2012 You might want to go back to the Bible and review the parables on lazy servants and how their lord treated them. God did not create this world for our personal amusement and is tolerant of us wasting what has been given. There is a price for disobedience, poor stewardship, and rebellion against the Master.I get what you're saying but some members are so beyond confused as to know what to do in life i.e career, marriage to whom, when, have kids or not etc. that some are in despair and haven't received a shred of guidance on these matters-or have received conflicting guidance. If God doesn't care why should they in these things?
DavidB Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 I know for a fact that a female missionary was called as a Missionary District Leader in an Australian Missions.
Freedom Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Why??Because this is how God wants it to be at the moment. Church government changes from time to time but missionary work is a priesthood responsibility so this is likely why, at this time, only Melchizedek priesthood holders may be called to this position.
Freedom Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 I know for a fact that a female missionary was called as a Missionary District Leader in an Australian Missions.Well, name the mission president, the name of the sister, and the year it occurred.
Freedom Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Well the stake president didn't object to the final formulation, which was call a priesthood holder and have the wife do the work.Are we really a church that would rather have an incompetent man rather than a competent women in the position.To be devils advocate, I would say are we really a church that would rather have an incompetent man be a bishop than a competent Catholic priest in the position. The calling is not for the most competent, the calling is an opportunity for the least among us to lean and grow. God does not want professional clergy, he wants us to learn to serve, to get outside our comfort zone, to stretch a little taller.
Duncan Posted November 5, 2012 Author Posted November 5, 2012 To be devils advocate, I would say are we really a church that would rather have an incompetent man be a bishop than a competent Catholic priest in the position. The calling is not for the most competent, the calling is an opportunity for the least among us to lean and grow. God does not want professional clergy, he wants us to learn to serve, to get outside our comfort zone, to stretch a little taller.I know that! I just wonder at what expense, what if someone is driving members to quit their callings or just plain burn out? I have seen this happen here more then a few times with some in a leadership calling
Recommended Posts