Why Do Sunday School Presidents And Councelors Require Priesthood

[DBMormon]

Several of you are discussing the word "Oversee". One ought to look at the handbook and see when certain words are used

"Oversee"

"presides"

"directs"

"organize"

"Coordinate"

"With _____'s Approval"

For example of one sentence in the handbook reads

"Under the bishop’s direction, quorum and group leaders oversee home teaching. They instruct home teachers in their duties and inspire them to perform these duties well."

While there is a Hierarchy of authority, the handbook clearly places which leaders has the right to direct (give direction to how it is to be accomplished), which leaders oversee (ensure it is accomplished the way they have been directed) and those who preside (the highest Church Officer in the room or at the meeting).

For instance the Stake President Presides over the Bishop, but it is the Bishop who gives direction on the Ward Home Teaching Program and it is the EQ President and HPGL who ensure it is accomplished.

We are all too quick to overstep our bounds if we do not understand thoroughly the handbook.

Edited January 18, 2013 by DBMormon

[Calm]

In my reasearch I found that the sunday school Prez was at one time a big deal, now not so much, before the 3 hour block you would come to church for sacrament then go home, and later come back for sunday school and before the classes there would be a meeting and believe it or not they would do the sacrament again, then you would attend your sunday school class. then go home and come back for rs or ph. so this shows that the sunday school prez would lead a meeting.

when I was sunday school prez, I had 2 consolers and 5 sunday school board members, and we had a great time taking care of sunday school needs.

My experience prior to the three hour was Primary and RS being during the week, PH was early morning Sunday about an hour IIRC with enough time for dads to go home and get the womenfolk and children in between, SS was an hour and a half with opening exercises with talks and the Sacrament, split into Junior and Senior (Junior being combined with the after school activity of Primary into Primary on Sunday), a break for lunch and then back for Sacrament Meeting (2 hours). My husband who is a native Utahn says they had two wards in a building at most. My memory for outside of Utah was the same. Edited January 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

When I was a bishop, we didn't have a Sunday School presidency at all (not even a president). We had much more pressing needs for people, and nobody misses or realizes that there isn't one. Especially since teacher training was taken away from the Sunday School presidency.

I also didn't have an executive secretary for the last three years. The stake presidency took my first one after two weeks (he was amazing, and is the new bishop), and after suffering through three horrible ones, I simply did my own scheduling. It was much better that way, instead of leaving a message and sending a text and an email to the ES and following up with more only to find out that, indeed, appointments weren't made, cancelled, or rescheduled. I think people liked actually scheduling directly through the bishop, too. My response time was excellent, if I missed a call.

The counselors in the stake presidency insisted that I had to have one, but as I pointed out, there is nothing in the handbooks about an ES being mandatory. And we worked much better without one.

Wow. Would you do me a favor, Rongo? Would you let my bishop know that, however much I leave to be desired as his Executive Secretary, even I'm not that bad! (I'll be glad to PM you his IRL contact information!) I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to fill up my bishop's Sunday schedule other than the two interviews he has asked me to schedule, and none of the current names on the "Action & Interview" list are active, so ....

[rongo]

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to fill up my bishop's Sunday schedule other than the two interviews he has asked me to schedule, and none of the current names on the "Action & Interview" list are active, so ....

Don't fill up his schedule simply to fill it up. Let him have time with his family.

[Calm]

My husband has informed me, besides being over the library and teachers, they have put the SS Pres in charge of firesides and other teaching opportunities.

[Cobalt-70]

Then the RS president should be ordained.

They are. Just like an Elder or High Priest, a Relief Society president is "called of god, by prophecy and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority." Moreover, in the temple, they are endowed with priesthood power and prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood.

[Cobalt-70]

The policy is that it is a Priesthood calling, yet what is the Doctrine behind it? Could a Sister be a SS president someday and policy just stands in the way or is there a doctrinal reason.

I don't even think that's even truly the policy. The handbook says that the Sunday School president should be a Melchizedek priest, but it doesn't say that it is a priesthood calling. However, the Sunday School presidency, like the Relief Society presidency, is a ministry, and the holder of that position, like the RS president, is performing a priesthood function.

As to their being no doctrinal reasons, I agree. I don't think there is any doctrinal or logical reason why leading a local Sunday School organization requires a particular You need to stop using inflammatory language in your posts.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Nemesis
edited out by Nemesis

[Doctrine 612]

My experience prior to the three hour was Primary and RS being during the week, PH was early morning Sunday about an hour IIRC with enough time for dads to go home and get the womenfolk and children in between, SS was an hour and a half with opening exercises with talks and the Sacrament, split into Junior and Senior (Junior being combined with the after school activity of Primary into Primary on Sunday), a break for lunch and then back for Sacrament Meeting (2 hours). My husband who is a native Utahn says they had two wards in a building at most. My memory for outside of Utah was the same.

Thank you that is what i was going for, sometimes we forget that the church today was not the same church yesterday, it is always growing line by line.

[Scott Lloyd]

In my most recent interview on the MormonDiscussion Podcast, the person I interviewed mentioned that she didn't see the Sunday School President as a Priesthood calling. I mentioned that it was but that I had no idea why it was. Please don't just say because the church says so.... I accept that but am looking to learn beyond what I already know. Why can't a sister be a SS President or SS councelor, why does Sunday School Presidentcy require Priesthood?

The interview won't be up till later tonight or tomorrow in case you were looking for it.

- Bill

I haven't taken time to read the rest of this thread yet, but I can say immediately that your assumption is incorrect. Sunday School president is not a priesthood calling, though he functions under the direction of the priesthood, just as do presidents of the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary.

In fact, I have a vague recollection that black men were on occasion called as Sunday School presidents even before the 1978 revelation on the priesthood.

And I can't resist a spelling correction, perhaps because the error is so prominent in the title of this thread. There is no such word as "councelor." Perhaps you were going for councilor, which would be a correct spelling but an incorrect application of the word. The correct word in this case is counselor, derived from the root verb to counsel, as opposed to councilor, which is derived from the root noun council, as in high council. Thus, a member of a high council would be a high councilor (not "high councilman," which is an incorrect term).

Come to think of it, your incorrectly spelled word amounts to a kind of hybrid between the two correctly spelled terms councilor and counselor.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I haven't taken time to read the rest of this thread yet, but I can say immediately that your assumption is incorrect. Sunday School president is not a priesthood calling, though he functions under the direction of the priesthood, just as do presidents of the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary.

In fact, i have a vague recollection that black men were on occasion called as Sunday School presidents even before the 1978 revelation on the priesthood.

I don't think that the handbook citation has been provided yet so I thought I'd stick it here in the thread. I realize this does not address any "doctrinal reason" but it does provide a clear statement on the policy.

This is from Handbook 2, Section 12.2.2

Members of the ward Sunday School presidency are priesthood holders. Where possible, the president holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. They work under the direction of the bishopric. They receive orientation and ongoing support from the stake Sunday School presidency.

Personally, I'd like to see a woman's approach to the calling because I think it's often a call that we men struggle with magnifying. Not trying to slam anyone or be sexist but I think the men I've seen in the calling do a fine job of making sure the structure (class, teachers, etc) is there. What I haven't seen is any new or creative ideas implemented. And maybe that's not the point.

[mathonihah]

In my most recent interview on the MormonDiscussion Podcast, the person I interviewed mentioned that she didn't see the Sunday School President as a Priesthood calling. I mentioned that it was but that I had no idea why it was. Please don't just say because the church says so.... I accept that but am looking to learn beyond what I already know. Why can't a sister be a SS President or SS councelor, why does Sunday School Presidentcy require Priesthood?

The interview won't be up till later tonight or tomorrow in case you were looking for it.

- Bill

I believe it is just a preference or a preferred option in the Church that all administrative duties and responsibilities should be handles by priesthood holders (where possible), even in instances when it is not an integral part of the priesthood organization, or the ecclesiastical structure of the Church. So the answer basically boils down to "because the Church says so," even though you don't like that particular answer. There is a logic to it, but that logic is an obscure one.

[DBMormon]

In fact, i have a vague recollection that black men were on occasion called as Sunday School presidents even before the 1978 revelation on the priesthood.

And I can't resist a spelling correction, perhaps because the error is so prominent in the title of this thread. There is no such word as "councelor." Perhaps you were going for councilor, which would be a correct spelling but an incorrect application of the word. The correct word in this case is counselor, derived from the root verb to counsel, as opposed to councilor, which is derived from the root noun council, as in high council. Thus, a member of a high council would be a high councilor (not "high councilman," which is an incorrect term).

Come to think of it, your incorrectly spelled word amounts to a kind of hybrid between the two correctly spelled terms councilor and counselor.

I find it odd that many here find reason to pick out my grammatical errors. Meanwhile may I in turn then note that you forgot to capitalize the (I ) in your above sentence. But hey, whose keeping track?

[DBMormon]

I haven't taken time to read the rest of this thread yet, but I can say immediately that your assumption is incorrect. Sunday School president is not a priesthood calling, though he functions under the direction of the priesthood, just as do presidents of the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary.

Actually you are incorrect

the handbook states

Ward Sunday School Presidency

Members of the ward Sunday School presidency are priesthood holders. Where possible, the president holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. They work under the direction of the bishopric. They receive orientation and ongoing support from the stake Sunday School presidency.

So they must have Priesthood and they Should if at all possible be Melchizedek PH holders.

For the record everything I have shared has been from Handbook 2 as it is public, while Handbook 1 is not. So others following my example should tread carefully if sharing Book 1 as that is likely frowned upon

Edited January 18, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bernard Gui]

Opinion alert!

This is a holdover from before the consolidated schedule when Sunday School was as described by Calmoriah. It was a general meeting for all members conducted by the president and included a sacrament ordinance. Junior Sunday School was a subsidiary meeting at the same time, and also included the sacrament. If my memory serves, the SS presidency also conducted that meeting.

I miss the two-and-a-half minute talks and the practice hymn. IMO, it is now just a traditional practice that could legitimately be changed.

I wish we had practice hymn time to learn new hymns. One ward I was in had one between sacrament meeting and Sunday schools classes to give teachers time to set up for their classes.

[Tacenda]

Opinion alert!

This is a holdover from before the consolidated schedule when Sunday School was as described by Calmoriah. It was a general meeting for all members conducted by the president and included a sacrament ordinance. Junior Sunday School was a subsidiary meeting at the same time, and also included the sacrament. If my memory serves, the SS presidency also conducted that meeting.

I miss the two-and-a-half minute talks and the practice hymn. IMO, it is now just a traditional practice that could legitimately be changed.

I wish we had practice hymn time to learn new hymns. One ward I was in had one between sacrament meeting and Sunday schools classes to give teachers time to set up for their classes.

I remember the "practice hymns portion" also. And, when a child I remember a time when someone sat off to the side, at that desk that is built in some chapels. Maybe that is where the ward clerk sat instead of walking up and down the aisle for roll count. But my memory tells me it had something to do with Sunday School. Am I wrong? Edited January 18, 2013 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually you are incorrect

the handbook states

So they must have Priesthood and they Should if at all possible be Melchizedek PH holders.

For the record everything I have shared has been from Handbook 2 as it is public, while Handbook 1 is not. So others following my example should tread carefully if sharing Book 1 as that is likely frowned upon

I'm aware of what the handbook says. It doesn't state that Sunday School president is "a priesthood calling," which is what you asserted in your opening post. There is a difference between that and what the handbook does state, which is that those called are generally (though not mandatorily) Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

I realize the distinction is probably lost on many people, but I was educated about this some years ago after I had been put in as a stake Sunday School president. By virtue of my occupation, I work weekly with men from Church Correlation. Thus, I have opportunity quite frequently to ask questions about matters such as this. On that occasion, they explained to me what I've said here, that Sunday School president is not a priesthood calling, even though it is under the direction of the priesthood, and usually (not always) Melchizedek Priesthood holders are called to serve in the position.

The fact that there is an option to have an Aaronic Priesthood holder as Sunday School president should clue you in to the fact that it's not a priesthood calling, since the right of presidency belongs to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I find it odd that many here find reason to pick out my grammatical errors. Meanwhile may I in turn then note that you forgot to capitalize the (I ) in your above sentence. But hey, whose keeping track?

I noticed that just before I read your post pointing it out.

Unlike some here, such as Daniel Peterson and Pahoran, I don't seem to have a talent for writing immaculate text on the first draft. That's why most of my posts contain an "Edited by ..." stamp. I generally don't notice errors until after I've posted the message.

In this case, though, I think it quite obvious it was an oversight and that I do know that the personal pronoun is supposed to be a capital I. On the other hand, it wasn't clear to me that you know how to spell counselor, so I thought I'd help.

For better or worse, our written discourse is perceived as being more credible and authoritative if we take pains to see that the mechanics of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, usage, etc. are in order.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

I'm aware of what the handbook says. It doesn't state that Sunday School president is "a priesthood calling," which is what you asserted in your opening post. There is a difference between that and what the handbook does state, which is that those called are generally (though not mandatorily) Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

I realize the distinction is probably lost on many people, but I was educated about this some years ago after I had been put in as a stake Sunday School president. By virtue of my occupation, I work weekly with men from Church Correlation. Thus, I have opportunity quite frequently to ask questions about matters such as this. On that occasion, they explained to me what I've said here, that Sunday School president is not a priesthood calling, even though it is under the direction of the priesthood, and usually (not always) Melchizedek Priesthood holders are called to serve in the position.

The fact that there is an option to have an Aaronic Priesthood holder as Sunday School president should clue you in to the fact that it's not a priesthood calling, since the right of presidency belongs to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I noticed that just before I read your post pointing it out.

Unlike some here, such as Daniel Peterson and Pahoran, I don't seem to have a talent for writing immaculate text on the first draft. That's why most of my posts contain an "Edited by ..." stamp. I generally don't notice errors until after I've posted the message.

In this case, though, I think it quite obvious it was an oversight and that I do know that the personal pronoun is supposed to be a capital I. On the other hand, it wasn't clear to me that you know how to spell counselor, so I thought I'd help.

For better or worse, our written discourse is perceived as being more credible and authoritative if we take pains to see that the mechanics of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, usage, etc. are in order.

Wy duz Sonday Skool Prezidant rekwire Priesthood? Letting Goe of the fakt that it is not a Priesthood Kalling.

By the way YM's president also does require Priesthood but not the Melchizedek PH

Edited January 19, 2013 by DBMormon

[Calm]

For better or worse, our written discourse is perceived as being more credible and authoritative if we take pains to see that the mechanics of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, usage, etc. are in order.

Scott pointing out errors to improve our writing should, imo, be accepted with gratitude because of the above. That he is willing to make the extra effort to help us improve our writing so that people will respect and pay closer attention to it is admirable, espeically since he is experienced in people being dismissive of his corrections.

[DBMormon]

Well for the record, I am a two finger typer. I check in quickly, post a quick response, and get back to other things I have to do. Many others may do the same, though perhaps with better grammar. My grammar may continue to suffer because of that and the fact that their are two or three words I constantly spell wrong. Is their a spell check here? If not I don't have time to run this against office or word every time I write. Folks may continue to remind me and correct me but unfortunately it will likely improve very little. I will try, but it doesn't concern me here. In the real world , I take more time and spell check what I write. If I am taken less seriously, then so be it. I am not here for MDDB member approval ratings. So if what people see is grammar....fine, that doesn't doesn't really bother me.

[wenglund]

In my most recent interview on the MormonDiscussion Podcast, the person I interviewed mentioned that she didn't see the Sunday School President as a Priesthood calling. I mentioned that it was but that I had no idea why it was. Please don't just say because the church says so.... I accept that but am looking to learn beyond what I already know. Why can't a sister be a SS President or SS councelor, why does Sunday School Presidentcy require Priesthood?

The interview won't be up till later tonight or tomorrow in case you were looking for it.

- Bill

During the late 70's, the singles ward I attended had a female Sunday School president. If I can find the ward newsletter from back then, I will scan and post the announcement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

During the late 70's, the singles ward I attended had a female Sunday School president. If I can find the ward newsletter from back then, I will scan and post the announcement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Wade,

While I have heard several historical examples such as yours Wade, they may likely be someone acting out of harmony with the established organizational guidelines. The handbook is crystal clear that only Priesthood Holders can be in a Sunday School Presidency. Unless further info is available I must conclude they either didn't have appropriate instruction, were not aware of the guidelines, or were acting outside of what they had been instructed. Further info would be appreciated.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wy duz Sonday Skool Prezidant rekwire Priesthood? Letting Goe of the fakt that it is not a Priesthood Kalling.

By the way YM's president also does require Priesthood but not the Melchizedek PH

I can't at the moment find a written source that expresses it clearly enough that I think it would persuade you. All I can do is share with you my clearly remembered conversation with men whose responsibility, under the direction of the First Presidency and Twelve, is to scrutinize the Church's curricular material, periodicals, etc. to ensure conformity with doctrine and policy. We'll have to leave it at that.

I don't suppose it matters much anyway, in the final analysis, because what you are really asking is why Sunday School presidency members have to be priesthood holders. I don't choose to express an opinion on that at this juncture.

[DBMormon]

I can't at the moment find a written source that expresses it clearly enough that I think it would persuade you. All I can do is share with you my clearly remembered conversation with men whose responsibility, under the direction of the First Presidency and Twelve, is to scrutinize the Church's curricular material, periodicals, etc. to ensure conformity with doctrine and policy. We'll have to leave it at that.

I don't suppose it matters much anyway, in the final analysis, because what you are really asking is why Sunday School presidency members have to be priesthood holders. I don't choose to express an opinion on that at this juncture.

While I am sarcastic to your approach to point out Grammar, I am excitedly enthusiastic to have you explain exactly what you mean in regards to Sunday School President not being a PH calling but requiring PH. I would love a longer more indepth explanation of how you see this and understand it and how I can make sense of it. I do not disregard your opinion on this and would love to hear more!

Also curious how, in your mind, that makes it in fuction any different then a PH calling

Bill

Edited January 20, 2013 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

Well for the record, I am a two finger typer.

I've known a number of two-finger typists who are nonetheless careful in observing the rules of grammar, punctuation, spelling and usage, including some whose livelihood depends on good writing. I don't believe it's necessarily related to skill at the touch-typing method, although that might facilitate it.

I check in quickly, post a quick response, and get back to other things I have to do. Many others may do the same, though perhaps with better grammar. My grammar may continue to suffer because of that and the fact that their are two or three words I constantly spell wrong. Is their a spell check here? If not I don't have time to run this against office or word every time I write. Folks may continue to remind me and correct me but unfortunately it will likely improve very little. I will try, but it doesn't concern me here. In the real world , I take more time and spell check what I write.

Posting on a forum such as this, one potentially has a worldwide readership numbering in the millions (although admittedly it is probably closer to a few thousand). I question whether that makes it any the less "the real world" than writing a memo to employees or a supervisor or business contacts or clients, a document which, I presume, you might take more time and care with even though comparatively few would see it.

If I might draw an analogy here, if when speaking before a group of people in a business meeting or a congregation or class, one presumably would take care to see that he was physically presentable — hair combed, clothes tidy, etc. — it stands to reason one would take at least the same degree of care in personal appearance if he were to be featured on a television program or a widely distributed video with a potential audience numbering in the hundreds, thousands or millions.

If I am taken less seriously, then so be it. I am not here for MDDB member approval ratings. So if what people see is grammar....fine, that doesn't doesn't really bother me.

But presumably, you care about being persuasive in your discourse, or you wouldn't be posting in the first place. My point is that attention to the mechanics of good writing impacts the persuasiveness and power of one's message. Errors can be distracting, especially where they interfere with clear communication.

Writers who are careless in their attention to the nuts and bolts of writing may be viewed as being careless or less than intelligent in their thought or having inferior education. One could rail against this perception as being unfair, but its existence is nevertheless a fact that must be reckoned with.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

While I am sarcastic to your approach to point out Grammar, I am excitedly enthusiastic to have you explain exactly what you mean in regards to Sunday School President not being a PH calling but requiring PH. I would love a longer more indepth explanation of how you see this and understand it and how I can make sense of it. I do not disregard your opinion on this and would love to hear more!

Also curious how, in your mind, that makes it in fuction any different then a PH calling

Bill

I don't want to get into a protracted discussion about it. I will only repeat what was explained to me: A Sunday School president does not preside over people, as a priesthood leader would do, but he presides over a program.

You may take that for what it's worth or whatever implications it might have.

Edited to add:

In virtually all official Church publications (and I use the term "virtually," because there may conceivably be an errant exception here or there) the general Sunday School president is not referred to with the title "President" on either first or subsequent references. This goes back to the concept of Sunday School president not being a priesthood-leadership calling.

In fact, now that I think of it, it was in this connection that our conversation with Church Correlation transpired in the first place. At the Church News, we are instructed not to refer in text to the Sunday School president with the title "President". We use "Brother" instead.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd