EQP now over Ward mission leader?

[rongo]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I wonder if Bishop Burton misspoke here or there was some misunderstanding.  Per the handbook these callings do need to be cleared by the bishop. 

"The elders quorum president...oversee the calling of quorum...secretaries and instructors. The bishop’s approval is required before brethren may be called to these positions."

Aside from worthiness issues that only the bishop would be aware of, you wouldn't want the elders quorum president extending a call to a secretary or teacher at the same time that the bishop was extending a call to the same person to serve in the young mens organization.

Not speaking specifically about callings, but still applicable "...my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God." (D&C 132:18)  Havng the elders quorum president and the bishop both have the authority to call the same person to conflicting callings would seem to be the opposite of a "house of order."

  ****Please ignore the strikethourghs.  I can't seem to get rid of it.  I didn't select it and I can't seem to unselect it.  I've tried putting my entire post into Word, getting rid of the strikethrough, and then pasting it back into my post, but the strikethrough reappears as soon as I save.

That's interesting that the handbook says that, because Bishop Burton decidedly did not misspeak. My question was what the keys actually mean, and what is the practical difference between an EQP and a HPGL, both of whom can call and set apart secretaries and instructors. His answer was that a HPGL needs bishop approval, while an EQP does not (because of his keys). I liked that, because it means that they mean something; otherwise, there was a distinction without a difference between the two. 

I wouldn't mind a similar change allowing the deacon's quorum and teacher's quorum presidents to set apart their counselors, using their keys. That would be pretty radical, because up to now it has been regarded as needing to be done under the bishopric's Melchizedek priesthood of presiding over the ward --- and only priests being able to ordain to Aaronic priesthood office. To me, it would make the keys of the lower Aaronic quorums more meaningful, but that's something for a much higher pay grade than any of us have . . .  

[rongo]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But the counselors need Stake approval of course. But of course you are right about the teachers and secretary. But that is the same in Relief Society isn't it?

Well, other than the setting apart. The RS president can't do that . . .

The line between Consulting the bishop first and getting the Bishops approval is a pretty fine one I think.

Yes, it usually is one and the same, in practice.

The reality of even calling Elders Quorum counselors is that the president tells the bishop who he likes the Bishop approves it and then it is sent on to the stake.

Counselors, yes.

In the case of teachers and secretaries the elders Quorum president tells the bishop who he'd like , the bishop approves it and it's not send on to the stake.

After Bishop Burton's explanation, I had them call and set apart their own without my approval. I simply asked to be notified in case of disciplinary or other factors. 

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's interesting that the handbook says that, because Bishop Burton decidedly did not misspeak. My question was what the keys actually mean, and what is the practical difference between an EQP and a HPGL, both of whom can call and set apart secretaries and instructors. His answer was that a HPGL needs bishop approval, while an EQP does not (because of his keys). I liked that, because it means that they mean something; otherwise, there was a distinction without a difference between the two. 

I'm not sure how this would work.  What if there was a worthiness issue?  What if the person was in the process of receiving another calling?  What if they had another calling?  Most of the time there would not be a problem, but it seems like not talking with the bishop could, on occasion, lead to confusion and the bishopric and elders quorum presidency working at cross-purposes.

Everything in the handbook says that the bishop's approval is needed, and this just seems to make sense.

Edited September 11, 2018 by ksfisher

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure how this would work.  What if there was a worthiness issue?  What if the person was in the process of receiving another calling?  What if they had another calling?  Most of the time there would not be a problem, but it seems like not talking with the bishop could, on occasion, lead to confusion and the bishopric and elders quorum presidency working at cross-purposes.

As you say, in practice, the bishop would know in some form or another (whether that be notification, consultation, etc). If and when calling conflicts or worthiness issues became evident, the bishop would step in. 

What I liked about what he taught was that the keys mean that in a real way, the EQP holds keys over his quorum. 

Everything in the handbook says that the bishop's approval is needed, and this just seems to make sense.

What I found interesting was: he was the presiding bishop at the time. He knew what he was talking about, and his answer made a lot of sense to me.

[e-eye]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure how this would work.  What if there was a worthiness issue?  What if the person was in the process of receiving another calling?  What if they had another calling?  Most of the time there would not be a problem, but it seems like not talking with the bishop could, on occasion, lead to confusion and the bishopric and elders quorum presidency working at cross-purposes.

Everything in the handbook says that the bishop's approval is needed, and this just seems to make sense.

What Bishop Burton said may have been correct to a degree and maybe more appropriate then, it's not the case now.  The handbook is correct.  Stake callings are similar - The stake president could call someone in a ward without the bishops approval and sometimes I have seen where the bishop was the last to know but it's appropriate to start with the bishop for all the reasons you listed.

I think the goal for auxiliaries is to  take more of the load, so the bishop can focus on the youth.  Currently the bishop is over missionary work - I could see that changing though.  

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, e-eye said:

What Bishop Burton said may have been correct to a degree and maybe more appropriate then, it's not the case now.

This hadn't occurred to me. 

Rongo, did Bishop Burton say this before the current handbook went into effect?  Late 2010 if I remember right (but this is just off the top of my head).

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This hadn't occurred to me. 

Rongo, did Bishop Burton say this before the current handbook went into effect?  Late 2010 if I remember right (but this is just off the top of my head).

Oh, yes. This was around 2013 or so. Well within the current 2010 printed handbook. 

This brings up an interesting thing. For me, when there is a conflict between the handbook and what I am directly told by someone with authority (in this case, a bishop being told by the presiding bishop), I'm going to go with what the authority says. Even if the handbook contradicts that. Some people act like the handbook is almost an item of worship or something. Even the First Presidency makes exceptions to policies that the handbook says cannot be done, so if duly-authorized authority says differently, I'm going with that. 

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Oh, yes. This was around 2013 or so. Well within the current 2010 printed handbook. 

This brings up an interesting thing. For me, when there is a conflict between the handbook and what I am directly told by someone with authority (in this case, a bishop being told by the presiding bishop), I'm going to go with what the authority says. Even if the handbook contradicts that. Some people act like the handbook is almost an item of worship or something. Even the First Presidency makes exceptions to policies that the handbook says cannot be done, so if duly-authorized authority says differently, I'm going with that. 

I partially agree with you; but I do remember one of the things that President Monson counseled us to do in the introductory training was "follow the handbook." 

I do agree at times that there are reasons things need to be done differently.  But I find that unless these reasons are compelling, that things just work out better by doing what President Monson asked. 

 

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I partially agree with you; but I do remember one of the things that President Monson counseled us to do in the introductory training was "follow the handbook." 

I do agree at times that there are reasons things need to be done differently.  But I find that unless these reasons are compelling, that things just work out better by doing what President Monson asked. 

I agree with you. It's interesting that Bishop Burton taught something in contradiction to the handbook. It wasn't a doctrinal crisis or anything like that, of course. He was by far the best Q&A general authority I have every had. It was also here where he told us that there is only one checking account for the Church, so while there are multiple internal categories for bookkeeping, all Church money (tithing, fast offerings, investment returns, other accounts, etc.) is only in one account. This was in answer to another of my questions (we had a special bishops only session). 

If the Elders Quorum President's keys actually don't mean anything more than would also be the case for a primary president or Relief Society president (recommend for callings, and get approval from the bishop), well, that would be disappointing. So, I was happy with what he taught. 

I'm now 2nd counselor in the YM presidency, deacon's quorum advisor, and scoutmaster. Sunday, in a combined YM quorum meeting, I suggested that we have only scratched the surface as to what it means for the presidents to hold keys, and that there is not much explaining this anywhere (including in the scriptures). I also suggested that this is an area where we live beneath our privileges, and that people get what they inquire of God about and expect (or, conversely, they get as little as they put into it). I would love to hear more light and knowledge from the Brethren on priesthood keys. 

[tulip]

EQP should be called the Moving Quorum President.   The keys to his truck is what he needs.   😄

[e-eye]

On 9/11/2018 at 3:24 PM, rongo said:

Oh, yes. This was around 2013 or so. Well within the current 2010 printed handbook. 

This brings up an interesting thing. For me, when there is a conflict between the handbook and what I am directly told by someone with authority (in this case, a bishop being told by the presiding bishop), I'm going to go with what the authority says. Even if the handbook contradicts that. Some people act like the handbook is almost an item of worship or something. Even the First Presidency makes exceptions to policies that the handbook says cannot be done, so if duly-authorized authority says differently, I'm going with that. 

Well, he was released in 2012. So maybe he wasn’t even the presiding bishop or maybe it was much earlier than you thought.

im not doubting he said it but when it comes to contradicting the handbook it’s more of a unique situation. I th8nk it was Packer that said it was more of a guideline and he was pretty strict. 

I know in leadership after leadership meeting i have been told, when you have a problem or question check the handbook first - you’ll find your answer 95% of the time. Most the questions the brethren are asked could have been found in the handbook. 

If the handbook book was wrong, they probably would have fixed it.  In this case it hasn’t been. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:58 PM, rongo said:

Well, other than the setting apart. The RS president can't do that . . .

 

Yes, it usually is one and the same, in practice.

 

 

Counselors, yes.

 

 

After Bishop Burton's explanation, I had them call and set apart their own without my approval. I simply asked to be notified in case of disciplinary or other factors. 

I don't recall that the RS Pres was authorized to issue callings to instructors and secretary. Anyone have handbook access about that. I think it's incorrect.

Bishop Burton's comments don't make much sense to me. In a ward or stake setting it doesn't make sense that anyone could issue a calling to another person without running it past the bishop or SP for the simple reason that the Bishop and SP have a more complete picture of who is being used, where. It would be chaos if an EQ Pres could call whomever they wanted, regardless of their current calling or the Bishop's plan for an upcoming calling.

 

[rongo]

.

[rongo]

I can't seem to post anything in response to this without it being tagged "403 Access Forbidden." 

[rongo]

Unless I just type. If I try to copy/paste/plain text anything, it doesn't work. So here goes . . . 

Miscommunication. I was responding to mfbukowski's comment (tongue-in-cheek). I agree that RS presidents have never been able to call and set apart anybody.

As far as how Bishop Burton's statement works in practice: I've never found it to be a problem. The EQP knows his quorum well enough and is usually aware enough of the disciplinary status and calling priorities to where whom he calls as a teacher or secretary doesn't conflict. At least in my experience. It's a very narrow application of keys only in the areas of quorum instructor and secretary. 

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't recall that the RS Pres was authorized to issue callings to instructors and secretary. Anyone have handbook access about that. I think it's incorrect.

Auxiliary callings are recommended by the organization head, but the callings are approved and extended by the bishopric.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/callings-in-the-church?lang=eng#