More female representation in general conference

[2BizE]

I thought there was some really good discussion about women speakers in GC in the podcast Mormonland. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/26/2021 at 1:20 PM, Rain said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/09/the-relief-society-building-a-symbol-of-service-and-sacrifice?lang=eng

Long ago, the LDS Relief Society was a rich and powerful organization.  After WW I, for example, the Relief Society contributed 200,000 bushels of milling wheat to the U.S. Gov’t, and received formal thanks for that in 1918 from the U.S. House of Representatives.[1]  The Relief Society had its own grain silos.  All such welfare functions were later centralized in the Presiding Bishop's office.

---

[1] Improvement Era, 21:917.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Long ago, the LDS Relief Society was a rich and powerful organization.  After WW I, for example, the Relief Society contributed 200,000 bushels of milling wheat to the U.S. Gov’t, and received formal thanks for that in 1918 from the U.S. House of Representatives.[1]  The Relief Society had its own grain silos.  All such welfare functions were later centralized in the Presiding Bishop's office.

---

[1] Improvement Era, 21:917.

 

Any chance you know when it was centralized under the presiding bishop?

 

Edit: found it. 1973

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/11/an-overview-of-church-welfare-services?lang=eng

Edited May 3, 2021 by Rain

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

Any chance you know when it was centralized under the presiding bishop?

 

Edit: found it. 1973

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/11/an-overview-of-church-welfare-services?lang=eng

That kind of makes me sad.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That kind of makes me sad.

It doesn't make sense though, does it, for both the relief society and the bishop's storehouses to be doing essentially the same thing.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It doesn't make sense though, does it, for both the relief society and the bishop's storehouses to be doing essentially the same thing.

It made sense for over a hundred years.  I wonder why it couldn't have continued to make sense?  (not being snarky, honestly wondering).

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It made sense for over a hundred years.  I wonder why it couldn't have continued to make sense?  (not being snarky, honestly wondering).

It seems like it would be less expensive, in general, to have one organization administering or program or service that to have two organizations duplicating efforts.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

It doesn't make sense though, does it, for both the relief society and the bishop's storehouses to be doing essentially the same thing.

Were they doing the same thing?  

[MustardSeed]

I suppose the RS could have taken over the storehouse - renamed it the RS storehouse - it's the RS that does all the grunt stuff anyway.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Were they doing the same thing?  

They were both storing food for emergencies.  While the specifics may have been different in general it seems to have been a duplication of effort.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

It seems like it would be less expensive, in general, to have one organization administering or program or service that to have two organizations duplicating efforts.

Perhaps.  But why the need to take away all of their autonomy?  It seems like it gutted the RS organization a lot when they did that.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps.  But why the need to take away all of their autonomy?  It seems like it gutted the RS organization a lot when they did that.

I don't know.  Would it be better for the Relief Society to be autonomous from the rest of the church? 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps.  But why the need to take away all of their autonomy?  It seems like it gutted the RS organization a lot when they did that.

We definitely went backwards instead of forward.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I don't know.  Would it be better for the Relief Society to be autonomous from the rest of the church? 

Not autonomous from the rest of the church but autonomous within its own authority to govern itself.  Not outside of control of the prophet but distinctive within its stewardship. 

Kind of like how the EQ president is distinctive within his sphere of authority that is separate from the rest of the ward in many ways (not all ways, but many ways) because his authority is largely outside of the bishop's stewardship.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I suppose the RS could have taken over the storehouse - renamed it the RS storehouse - it's the RS that does all the grunt stuff anyway.

It makes sense in a lot of ways.  If our role as women is to nurture, welfare is certainly one of the ways we do it both in and out of the church.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

It makes sense in a lot of ways.  If our role as women is to nurture, welfare is certainly one of the ways we do it both in and out of the church.

I thought it extremely appropriate that the first counselor of the General Relief Society is also head of Latter-day Saint Charities. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/3/2021 at 2:35 PM, bluebell said:

Not autonomous from the rest of the church but autonomous within its own authority to govern itself.  Not outside of control of the prophet but distinctive within its stewardship. 

Kind of like how the EQ president is distinctive within his sphere of authority that is separate from the rest of the ward in many ways (not all ways, but many ways) because his authority is largely outside of the bishop's stewardship.

The Bishop is the presiding high priest in the ward. That makes the elders quorum president subject to his authority. 
 

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Presiding_High_Priest

Edited May 5, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Bishop is the presiding high priest in the ward. That makes the elders quorum president subject to his authority. 

But it is the stake president who calls the Elder's quorum president, not the bishop.  And it is the stake president who must give approval for the counselors that the EQ president chooses, not the bishop.  Plus, rather than the bishop or a bishopric counselor presenting the name of a new EQ presidency to the ward for a sustaining vote, a member of the stake high council does it.

Lastly, it is the stake president that sets the EQ president a part and confers on him the keys of that calling.  The bishop cannot do it.  

So while the EQ president is subject to the authority of the bishop in many ways, he is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Stake, because of the keys that he holds.

 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But it is the stake president who calls the Elder's quorum president, not the bishop.  And it is the stake president who must give approval for the counselors that the EQ president chooses, not the bishop.  Plus, rather than the bishop or a bishopric counselor presenting the name of a new EQ presidency to the ward for a sustaining vote, a member of the stake high council does it.

Lastly, it is the stake president that sets the EQ president a part and confers on him the keys of that calling.  The bishop cannot do it.  

So while the EQ president is subject to the authority of the bishop in many ways, he is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Stake, because of the keys that he holds.

 

 

 

 

Be that as it may, the Bishop as presiding high priest presides over the elders quorum president as it pertains to the administration of the ward. 
 

We could perhaps compare it to the Presidency of the Seventy. They collectively preside over the quorums of the Seventy, even though it was the First Presidency who issued the calls of the individual seventies. 

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

But it is the stake president who calls the Elder's quorum president, not the bishop.  And it is the stake president who must give approval for the counselors that the EQ president chooses, not the bishop.  Plus, rather than the bishop or a bishopric counselor presenting the name of a new EQ presidency to the ward for a sustaining vote, a member of the stake high council does it.

Lastly, it is the stake president that sets the EQ president a part and confers on him the keys of that calling.  The bishop cannot do it.  

So while the EQ president is subject to the authority of the bishop in many ways, he is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Stake, because of the keys that he holds.

The stake president holds the keys of authority for everyone holding the Melchizedek priesthood in the stake, not just the elders quorum presidency. No-one can be ordained Elder or High Priest without the stake president's approval. The bishop doesn't even have the authority to call or set apart his own counselors, executive secretary or ward clerks. That doesn't mean that the bishop does not have any authority over those holding these positions, just because he can't call or set them apart himself. 

Long time ago, depending upon stake population, there might only be one elders quorum president in the entire stake -- with each ward having its own elders group leader on a par with the ward high priests group leader, and ward seventies group leader. You could have made the argument then that the EQ president was independent of the bishop, because he was independent in plain fact. After the policy change to have each ward have its own elders quorum, that was no longer the case.

One might like to think the EQP is independent of the bishop, but it would be a charming overstatement. I've been an EQP, and I was never under the impression that I reported directly to the stake president. It was very clear to me that I reported directly to the bishop.

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The stake president holds the keys of authority for everyone holding the Melchizedek priesthood in the stake, not just the elders quorum presidency. No-one can be ordained Elder or High Priest without the stake president's approval. The bishop doesn't even have the authority to call or set apart his own counselors, executive secretary or ward clerks. That doesn't mean that the bishop does not have any authority over those holding these positions, just because he can't call or set them apart himself. 

Long time ago, depending upon stake population, there might only be one elders quorum president in the entire stake -- with each ward having its own elders group leader on a par with the ward high priests group leader, and ward seventies group leader. You could have made the argument then that the EQ president was independent of the bishop, because he was independent in plain fact. After the policy change to have each ward have its own elders quorum, that was no longer the case.

One might like to think the EQP is independent of the bishop, but it would be a charming overstatement. I've been an EQP, and I was never under the impression that I reported directly to the stake president. It was very clear to me that I reported directly to the bishop.

Kind of. You're not "wrong" as such, but the keys mean something. 

I asked Bishop Burton this question when he visited our stake. A high priest's group leader and an elder's quorum president can do the same things, including setting apart teachers and the secretary. Yet, an EQP has keys and a HPGL doesn't. What's the difference? The difference, he said, is that an EQP can unilaterally call, sustain, and set apart his teachers and secretary, but a HPGL can't. He must get the bishop's authorization. The keys really mean something (and a HPGL has delegated authority through the stake president). 

This isn't to say that an EQP goes rogue and does whatever he wants. There is overlap with worthiness and discipline he may not be aware of, but he has the authority to do so, by virtue of his keys, without the bishop's approval. 

That blew me away, because I had thought along the lines of what you wrote above. 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The stake president holds the keys of authority for everyone holding the Melchizedek priesthood in the stake, not just the elders quorum presidency. No-one can be ordained Elder or High Priest without the stake president's approval. The bishop doesn't even have the authority to call or set apart his own counselors, executive secretary or ward clerks. That doesn't mean that the bishop does not have any authority over those holding these positions, just because he can't call or set them apart himself. 

Long time ago, depending upon stake population, there might only be one elders quorum president in the entire stake -- with each ward having its own elders group leader on a par with the ward high priests group leader, and ward seventies group leader. You could have made the argument then that the EQ president was independent of the bishop, because he was independent in plain fact. After the policy change to have each ward have its own elders quorum, that was no longer the case.

One might like to think the EQP is independent of the bishop, but it would be a charming overstatement. I've been an EQP, and I was never under the impression that I reported directly to the stake president. It was very clear to me that I reported directly to the bishop.

I never made the argument that the bishop doesn't have any authority over those in those positions.  I said that his authority over those positions is different than say, his authority over the RS president.