District Presidencies and interviews

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The mission president holds the keys of missionary work, which includes the keys of temple recommends for those living within his mission jurisdiction (districts). He cannot delegate this role to someone who is not a presiding high priest or bishop because a) these offices were established to do just that but there are none under his jurisdiction; b) a jurisdiction cannot have any unless there are at least 150 members and an additional 24 active, full-tithe-paying Melchizedek priesthood holders in the stake boundaries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_(LDS_Church) ).

The Lord set up the stake priesthood organization as the sole means of organizing the highest spiritual blessings of the Church (the temple ordinances)  in the D&C.

Here at least he does delegate to his councillor and I say well why not just delegate to someone closer

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Here at least he does delegate to his councillor and I say well why not just delegate to someone closer

Yes, his councilor would, by the virtue of presidency (D&C 107:29), rightly have those keys delegated to him. I suppose the president could call a third counselor who lives closer, and you might recommend that to hm, but he would need to counsel with his priesthood leader for approval to proceed. I also suppose that if his counselors find travel burdensome, they would bring it up in their presidency meetings. Maybe one of them is reading this right now and saying, "Hey, I think I'll do just that! Who is this Duncan fellow?"

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The mission president holds the keys of missionary work, which includes the keys of temple recommends for those living within his mission jurisdiction (districts). He cannot delegate this role to someone who is not a presiding high priest or bishop because a) these offices were established to do just that but there are none under his jurisdiction; b) a jurisdiction cannot have any unless there are at least 150 members and an additional 24 active, full-tithe-paying Melchizedek priesthood holders in the stake boundaries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_(LDS_Church) ).

The Lord set up the stake priesthood organization as the sole means of organizing the highest spiritual blessings of the Church (the temple ordinances)  in the D&C.

Thanks, that’s what I figured but I have never been a mission as an adult convert and never needed to know how it worked.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

As mfbukowski said in a different way . . .

There is no way that a Teacher could be the head of a family/household, as he does not have the priesthood or keys for being the head of a family (Teacher is not it!! ha ha ha).  But as a mother, especially if you received it in the temple, but even if you did not--THAT is the priesthood and keys for leading a family.

Thank you for taking time to reply.  I smiled and shook my head when my father in law told my son he was head of t he family...tough for 15 year old..I told him we were responsbile for each other as a family.

[Duncan]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, his councilor would, by the virtue of presidency (D&C 107:29), rightly have those keys delegated to him. I suppose the president could call a third counselor who lives closer, and you might recommend that to hm, but he would need to counsel with his priesthood leader for approval to proceed. I also suppose that if his counselors find travel burdensome, they would bring it up in their presidency meetings. Maybe one of them is reading this right now and saying, "Hey, I think I'll do just that! Who is this Duncan fellow?"

me?? yeah right!!!!!

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

me?? yeah right!!!!!

Well yeah..you.  There has to be a lot of leaders that are tired of doing things the hard way.  Though I admire their deligence, I feel for them and their families.  This Duncan guy might be able to open a few doors of communication and some good sense that aligns with the church.

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So this extra quote thing here...Duncan said....love the Canadians or eat dirt.

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Jeanne

[hagoth7]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

I get that keys and authorization but why can't in this instance it be extended to someone who already lives in the area, it's being done now from the key holder to a non key holder. if someone  asked me to drive 3 hours to interview someone for a recommend i'd tell them to do what with there you know what with

Pardon my ignorance...

...but is there a reason an interview has to be done in person? 

Phone, videoconf, carrier pigeon..other options?

A General Conference talk likened them pulling a prospective missionary's info and pic up on a screen, and proceeded with the talk (over a world long-distance conference) with a shft to consider that as an in-person interview. A means to discern and make spiritual decisions/assignments...from a distance.

Did that talk not imply what I think it did?

[Boanerges]

I think Duncan has a good question and I get the whole thing about keys, authority, etc. But am I seeing a double standard here? Branch presidents of branches in stakes (my own stake has more than one) can do temple recommend interviews yet they hold no keys.

Somewhat related, counselors to bishops can do recommends and also hold no keys.

So in the context of a district president needing keys to do temple recommend interviews, why is it permitted for branch presidents in stakes but not district presidents?

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Pardon my ignorance...

...but is there a reason an interview has to be done in person? 

Phone, videoconf, carrier pigeon..other options?

A General Conference talk likened them pulling a prospective missionary's info and pic up on a screen, and proceeded with the talk (over a world long-distance conference) with a shft to consider that as an in-person interview. A means to discern and make spiritual decisions/assignments...from a distance.

Did that talk not imply what I think it did?

somebody has to physically sign the recommend

[hagoth7]

21 minutes ago, Duncan said:

somebody has to physically sign the recommend

Wouldn't a simple/limited power of attorney cover that detail?

It wouldn't require the passing of keys that seems to be the stickler here. Simply authorizing someone to sign on their behalf on something they had personally approved.

 

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

me? I am not offended! I am just asking the lived experience for the two Mission Presidency members are driving 2-3 hours to interview someone when to me, there is no good reason someone out there can't do it, it just seems like a waste of time and lack of trust in a District Presidency-it seems bizarre to me!

An example from the First Presidency.

As you know, they are responsible for approval of restoring temple endowments, granting temple divorces, restoration of membership in special cases, etc.  There are many such requests and is very time consuming.  The paperwork is handled and passed onto them for their approal.

In some obvious cases, it is merely a matter of routine, and it was suggested that the staff could handle those routine requests -- to get the necessary signatures and process the request in order to free up their time.  But the Presidency decided that they would continue to make those decisions even though they were routine and took up valuable time.

Not very efficient, indicated they did not "trust" the staff, but they thought it was necessary.

Edited July 17, 2017 by cdowis

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Pardon my ignorance...

...but is there a reason an interview has to be done in person? 

Phone, videoconf, carrier pigeon..other options?

A General Conference talk likened them pulling a prospective missionary's info and pic up on a screen, and proceeded with the talk (over a world long-distance conference) with a shft to consider that as an in-person interview. A means to discern and make spiritual decisions/assignments...from a distance.

Did that talk not imply what I think it did?

I think there's value in a face to face interview. 

[hagoth7]

59 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think there's value in a face to face interview. 

I agree.

Meanwhile, the question was, how does one bridge the logistics issue? Hours of travel each direction, repeatedly. (Or is it deemed unsolveable, or someting that shouldn't be resolved?)

What do you propose?

Edited July 17, 2017 by hagoth7

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, hagoth7 said:

I agree.

The question is, how does one bridge the logistics issue? (Or does one?)

What do you propose?

I doesn't seem as if the people conducting the interviews are worried about the logistics.  If the responsibility was for any reason taken from the mission presidency the mission president would still be traveling anyway, visiting missionaries for trainings and mission conferences.

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think there's value in a face to face interview. 

It's called "a teaching moment", which is important for new members, especially residing in a District.

[cinepro]

On 7/16/2017 at 11:04 AM, Duncan said:

but the follow up is why can't he save on all that driving and give the District Pres. the permission to interview someone? keys can be given to others

Because they don't want to do it that way.

There is no doctrinal or scriptural reason that it can't be done.  The Relief Society President could do it if the Church wanted.  The act of interviewing someone to go to the Temple is totally procedural. 

So the answer to your question, "Who gets to decide who can go to the Temple?", is "Not the District Presidencies."

[Duncan]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Because they don't want to do it that way.

There is no doctrinal or scriptural reason that it can't be done.  The Relief Society President could do it if the Church wanted.  The act of interviewing someone to go to the Temple is totally procedural. 

So the answer to your question, "Who gets to decide who can go to the Temple?", is "Not the District Presidencies."

Were I in the mission presidency and had to travel 3 hours to interview someone or people for recommends and they wasn't a legit reason why someone closer couldn't do it, i'd be sincerely aggrieved

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

Were I in the mission presidency and had to travel 3 hours to interview someone or people for recommends and they wasn't a legit reason why someone closer couldn't do it, i'd be sincerely aggrieved

At the very least, I would argue that if an 18-year-old Elder can interview someone to be baptized, a High Priest should be able to interview someone for a renewal of a Temple Recommend.

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

At the very least, I would argue that if an 18-year-old Elder can interview someone to be baptized, a High Priest should be able to interview someone for a renewal of a Temple Recommend.

that;s true!!!! hahhahaha!

[CV75]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

At the very least, I would argue that if an 18-year-old Elder can interview someone to be baptized, a High Priest should be able to interview someone for a renewal of a Temple Recommend.

Except there aren't any high priests (functionally, anyway) in a district.