The Nehor Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Heh. So here we have high councilors spelled three different ways. Here is how I remember the proper spelling: A man who is a member of a high council (spelled with -il) is a high councilor (spelled with -ilor). A member of a bishopric or presidency provides counsel (spelled with -el) as needed to the officer who presides. That person is thus called a counselor (spelled with -elor). Hamba is no doubt using the older, British spelling for counsellor (with a double l), which is not wrong, except that the correct word in this instance is neither counselor nor counsellor, but councilor. If we are being pedantic I have been told by a General Authority that the church has no high councilor and they are pro-early referred to as a member or members of the High Council or they are “on” the High Council.
Ahab Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 On 2/9/2020 at 11:36 PM, MustardSeed said: Today we had ward conference. Both hours were great. Would it be against the rules of the new hand book if the Stake and ward relief society presidents and EQ president joined on the stand? There were 12 men on the stand. Zero women. This is 2020. Does it REALLY have to be only priesthood on the stand? I’ll bring it up with stake president who is my friend but only if it’s not a hard rule. I'd also like to know why the wives of the bishopric don't sit on the stand (called a rostrum) with their husbands? Do; they just not want to? Have they not been asked or told it's okay to go up there if they want to? Since Jesus has been seen sitting on the right hand of God, I wonder who sits on his left hand? That's where my wife usually sits when we sit down together. If all 3 wives of the bishopric can't sit on the left of their husbands for some reason, directly behind them would also be good. My wife has my back when she is with me and I watch out for whoever is coming toward us. Nobody can get on the rostrum when I am up there without me seeing them first.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 49 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If we are being pedantic I have been told by a General Authority that the church has no high councilor and they are pro-early referred to as a member or members of the High Council or they are “on” the High Council. From Handbook 2: Administering the Church: ”Under the direction of the stake presidency, high councilors help oversee the work of the Church in the stake. They have advisory and administrative responsibilities as described in the following paragraphs.” Maybe the General Authority you spoke with was referring to the term “high councilman” or ”high councilmen.” They are not properly (or even “pro-early”) referred to by that term.
The Nehor Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: From Handbook 2: Administering the Church: ”Under the direction of the stake presidency, high councilors help oversee the work of the Church in the stake. They have advisory and administrative responsibilities as described in the following paragraphs.” Maybe the General Authority you spoke with was referring to the term “high councilman” or ”high councilmen.” They are not properly (or even “pro-early”) referred to by that term. He said High Councilor. I thought it was odd and I never really followed it. Looking back on my post I probably should have been more clear that it is just a fun anecdote I do not take seriously. I found it funny.
MustardSeed Posted February 14, 2020 Author Posted February 14, 2020 On 2/12/2020 at 12:17 AM, Scott Lloyd said: Heh. So here we have high councilors spelled three different ways. Here is how I remember the proper spelling: A man who is a member of a high council (spelled with -il) is a high councilor (spelled with -ilor). A member of a bishopric or presidency provides counsel (spelled with -el) as needed to the officer who presides. That person is thus called a counselor (spelled with -elor). Hamba is no doubt using the older, British spelling for counsellor (with a double l), which is not wrong, except that the correct word in this instance is neither counselor nor counsellor, but councilor. Ok.
MustardSeed Posted February 14, 2020 Author Posted February 14, 2020 (edited) On 2/12/2020 at 9:55 AM, Ahab said: I'd also like to know why the wives of the bishopric don't sit on the stand (called a rostrum) with their husbands? Do; they just not want to? Have they not been asked or told it's okay to go up there if they want to? Since Jesus has been seen sitting on the right hand of God, I wonder who sits on his left hand? That's where my wife usually sits when we sit down together. If all 3 wives of the bishopric can't sit on the left of their husbands for some reason, directly behind them would also be good. My wife has my back when she is with me and I watch out for whoever is coming toward us. Nobody can get on the rostrum when I am up there without me seeing them first. I personally have no need to accompany my husband for whatever calling HE has. If my husband were a mission president I would insist on NOT having any duties of presiding, sitting on stand, speaking, or otherwise unless I were also given a calling. And I certainly would not sit behind my husband in the stands. But that’s me. He wouldn’t hear of it, either. Different strokes, I guess. Edited February 14, 2020 by MustardSeed 2
Duncan Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 On 2/12/2020 at 11:55 AM, Ahab said: I'd also like to know why the wives of the bishopric don't sit on the stand (called a rostrum) with their husbands? Do; they just not want to? Have they not been asked or told it's okay to go up there if they want to? Since Jesus has been seen sitting on the right hand of God, I wonder who sits on his left hand? That's where my wife usually sits when we sit down together. If all 3 wives of the bishopric can't sit on the left of their husbands for some reason, directly behind them would also be good. My wife has my back when she is with me and I watch out for whoever is coming toward us. Nobody can get on the rostrum when I am up there without me seeing them first. most? some? have kids? I doubt we want adults running all over the place chasing after kids, I know for our ward members of the congregation help out with bishopric kids 1
teddyaware Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 On 2/10/2020 at 11:43 AM, pogi said: I'd rather be sitting with my family. What is the point of having everyone up on the stand anyway? To give those on the stand the opportunity to inwardly smirk as they look down their noses at the plebeians seated beneath them, who, sadly, haven’t attained the lofty heights of righteousness and deep spirituality that they’ve attained? 😉 1
Duncan Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 1 hour ago, teddyaware said: To give those on the stand the opportunity to inwardly smirk as they look down their noses at the plebeians seated beneath them, who, sadly, haven’t attained the lofty heights of righteousness and deep spirituality that they’ve attained? 😉 I had a bishopric member years, ago, who obviously didn't call himself to the calling, but had never read the Book of Mormon. He was a manager in a average sized business and I bet anything that's why he got the calling. I had another one who told us in seminary he doesn't read the Book of Mormon anymore because he "knows all the stories" which is why I never go to bishoprics or SP for any kind of spiritual advice😏
teddyaware Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 10 minutes ago, Duncan said: I had a bishopric member years, ago, who obviously didn't call himself to the calling, but had never read the Book of Mormon. He was a manager in a average sized business and I bet anything that's why he got the calling. I had another one who told us in seminary he doesn't read the Book of Mormon anymore because he "knows all the stories" which is why I never go to bishoprics or SP for any kind of spiritual advice😏 As to the second gentleman, as Bugs Bunny would say, “What A MAROON!” 1
Teancum Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 On 2/10/2020 at 2:36 AM, MustardSeed said: Today we had ward conference. Both hours were great. Would it be against the rules of the new hand book if the Stake and ward relief society presidents and EQ president joined on the stand? There were 12 men on the stand. Zero women. This is 2020. Does it REALLY have to be only priesthood on the stand? I’ll bring it up with stake president who is my friend but only if it’s not a hard rule. We always had the RS presidents on the stand. And typically the ward RS president has spoken at our ward conferences. Usually goes RS pres, Bishop the Stake Pres. 2
Rain Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 (edited) On 2/12/2020 at 10:55 AM, Ahab said: I'd also like to know why the wives of the bishopric don't sit on the stand (called a rostrum) with their husbands? Do; they just not want to? Have they not been asked or told it's okay to go up there if they want to? Since Jesus has been seen sitting on the right hand of God, I wonder who sits on his left hand? That's where my wife usually sits when we sit down together. If all 3 wives of the bishopric can't sit on the left of their husbands for some reason, directly behind them would also be good. My wife has my back when she is with me and I watch out for whoever is coming toward us. Nobody can get on the rostrum when I am up there without me seeing them first. I see no reason to have the wives there, unless they are ward leaders. I find it kind of funny that people will say things like, "we have women leaders" and yet we often ignore the actual leaders at ward and stake conferences etc and instead make a show of having women by putting the wives of men leaders by their sides with the women leaders nowhere to be seen. Imagine actually having a RSP on the stand during conference, but her husband is sitting beside her. Some may find that nice, but most would also think it "different" and wonder why he is there. Edited February 14, 2020 by Rain 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 21 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I personally have no need to accompany my husband for whatever calling HE has. If my husband were a mission president I would insist on NOT having any duties of presiding, sitting on stand, speaking, or otherwise unless I were also given a calling. And I certainly would not sit behind my husband in the stands. But that’s me. He wouldn’t hear of it, either. Different strokes, I guess. Wives of mission presidents do have callings. They are set apart as missionaries with responsibilities of their own. And yes, they might have speaking assignments in their role as companion to the mission president. I agree with you about not wanting to sit behind your husband on the stand. That would seem weird. 1
Ahab Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 On 2/14/2020 at 12:49 PM, Rain said: I see no reason to have the wives there, unless they are ward leaders. I find it kind of funny that people will say things like, "we have women leaders" and yet we often ignore the actual leaders at ward and stake conferences etc and instead make a show of having women by putting the wives of men leaders by their sides with the women leaders nowhere to be seen. Imagine actually having a RSP on the stand during conference, but her husband is sitting beside her. Some may find that nice, but most would also think it "different" and wonder why he is there. Just because they like sitting together, I would think. Not because both of them are in leadership positions, or that both will be speaking, but mainly just because they do not want to be separated during the whole meeting, preferring to sit together, as my wife and I usually do. I would ask my wife to come up to the rostrum with me when I am assigned to speak but she needs to be able to read the lips of the person who is speaking, because she is legally deaf. So that wouldn't work for us otherwise I would want her to sit with me when I am up there. I just find it curious that husband and wives don't both sit together on the rostrum like they would if one of them didn't have a reason to be up there. And if one goes up there, I think the other should feel comfortable going up there too just so they can still sit together. I know not everyone feels the same way about everything but it just strikes me as a bit odd that most couples don't sit together when one of them is up there.
bluebell Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 On 2/14/2020 at 6:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Wives of mission presidents do have callings. They are set apart as missionaries with responsibilities of their own. And yes, they might have speaking assignments in their role as companion to the mission president. I agree with you about not wanting to sit behind your husband on the stand. That would seem weird. That’s interesting. What responsibilities are the wives of mission presidents set a part with?
Ahab Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 On 2/14/2020 at 5:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Wives of mission presidents do have callings. They are set apart as missionaries with responsibilities of their own. And yes, they might have speaking assignments in their role as companion to the mission president. I agree with you about not wanting to sit behind your husband on the stand. That would seem weird. Yes side by side would be my preference. I don't know if there would always be enough seats for that, though, so behind would just be another option. Or the bishopric could sit with their wives with still enough seating for the stake president to sit with his wife on one side on the front row and anyone else wanting to sit with the bishopric and stake presidency with their wives could sit behind them on the second row with the other side reserved for those who would be speaking, with some of their spouses also coming up if they wanted to sit with them. The way it is now it is as if it is a tradition that they don't sit with their spouses while they are up there, and I just wonder why there is that tradition, if that's what it is, or why they don't just go up there with them.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, bluebell said: That’s interesting. What responsibilities are the wives of mission presidents set a part with? They are called as missionary companions to their husbands with whatever duties that might entail. I see it as being not unlike the calling that comes to any senior missionary couple, though there would of course be important differences as pertaining to presiding over the mission. This is an old article (1995) but it provides some insight into the varied duties of the mission president’s companion: https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1995-02-18/roles-are-varied-for-mission-presidents-wife-137453 Edited February 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: They are called as missionary companions to their husbands with whatever duties that might entail. I see it as being not unlike the calling that comes to any senior missionary couple, though there would of course be important differences as pertaining to presiding over the mission. This is an old article (1995) but it provides some insight into the varied duties of the mission president’s companion: https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1995-02-18/roles-are-varied-for-mission-presidents-wife-137453 So they are not set a part with any unique responsibilities relative to their call as a mission president's wife but are given the same basic responsibilities as a sister missionary?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: So they are not set a part with any unique responsibilities relative to their call as a mission president's wife but are given the same basic responsibilities as a sister missionary? The article I cited seems to indicate that duties and responsibilities would vary according to the situation and circumstances. That stands to reason, of course. I didn’t mean to imply by my comment that I’m aware of any rigid checklist of duties given as standard issue to every wife of a mission president. I recall hearing that a call and setting apart comes to the wife at the time the husband is called, that she is not just coming along for the ride, as it were. And that stands to reason too, when you think about it. Why would the wife in a senior missionary couple have a missionary calling and the wife of a mission president not have such a calling?
bluebell Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The article I cited seems to indicate that duties and responsibilities would vary according to the situation and circumstances. That stands to reason, of course. I read that. I hope they do an updated article soon on their duties. The article kind of makes them sound like their main duties are hostess, nurse, and teacher of manners and I think one written in this decade would view their main responsibilities differently. But it seems clear (by the fact that they vary) that none of those were duties that the mission president's wife was specifically set a part to fulfill. Quote I didn’t mean to imply by my comment that I’m aware of any rigid checklist of duties given as standard issue to every wife of a mission president. Oh, o.k. I thought that's what you were saying. I think we can assume that Mission President's are set a part with specific responsibilities related to his calling as a mission president, can't we? Quote I recall hearing that a call and setting apart comes to the wife at the time the husband is called, that she is not just coming along for the ride, as it were. Yes, I know that that's true. It's just a little weird that we set them a part as a mission president's wife but they are not set a part to fulfill any specific responsibilities related to that calling. What are they set a part to do, exactly? Quote And that stands to reason too, when you think about it. Why would the wife in a senior missionary couple have a missionary calling and the wife of a mission president not have such a calling? On the other hand though, it doesn't really stand to reason. Why would the wife in a senior missionary couple have the same calling as the mission president's wife? If she serves no unique purpose related to the calling she has been given, why call her to that calling? 1
Recommended Posts