Jump to content

High Council qualifications


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It's not changing the handbook to have personal preferences in certain stake callings (like having children, as Nehor said).

It might be. Like, if a SP had a personal preference that all aaronic priesthood holders wear white to pass the sacrament.

Or if they preferred that everyone face towards the temple when setting anyone a part for a calling.

Or, if their preference was that all high councilors must be married.

Etc. 

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment

Yep.  That whole "husband-of-one-wife" thingy is the reason I'll never be a bishop ... or a stake president ...

...

...

...

Hallelujah! :yahoo: 

"Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

"Praise Him all creatures here below.

"Praise Him above, ye heavenly host.

"Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!"

:D :rofl: :D 

P.S.: I should add, there are other reasons why I'll never be a bishop or a stake president ... but we won't go into those! ;) :D 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Anyone challenge him on it?  Ask him why he thinks it is needed? 

Oh yeah.

Sure.

Doesn't happen in the real world.  One does not do that.   One of the "unwritten rules" of leadership

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Someone really needs to call him on that.  Like, ask where it says that is a requirement in the handbook maybe?  Something still respectful but concerned.

He would not need to answer - presumably he has prayed about the situation in HIS STAKE and made a decision.

All it would do is appear to be questioning HIS particular revelations on perhaps some situation you have no idea about.

I have been in stakes where NO facial hair was allowed in leadership and others where MANY have had facial hair.   Remember the reason early prophets had beards because the  fashion standards for a "conservative" established person were to be bearded.

Then along came the hippies and you didn't want to look like THAT! 

So no facial hair became the standard.   This stuff can vary from area to area.   Maybe it should maybe not.   It depends!!   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that I'm the one who has the exceptional idea about whether or not it's appropriate to call widows and widowers "single" in the church.  :D 

See-  I am not Utah enough to even GET that comment.

Does "single" signify looking for a partner in Utah?   You wouldn't call a widow "single"?   I might do that- the nuance is lost on me.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, his response was along the lines of since he approves the call he can put restrictions in.

This is one of the more minor problems we have. It is an interesting stake.

Try asking LDS residents of Las Vegas if it is appropriate for LDS people to work for casinos.

Even in CA I had to figure out if I could accept tithing from a professional gambler and "card counter".   Is that different for someone in food service?

We DO have some legal casinos in the LA area.

Oy Vey!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Anyone challenge him on it?  Ask him why he thinks it is needed? 

Yeah, it didn’t help. They aren’t bad people. They are just micromanagers and meddlers. The rule of thumb is NEVER let the stake know when you are planning to do something or try something new.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Because it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission?

Because they might try to help. Or like it and turn it into a stake level thing and then shut it down once it is ready. Or kill it due to scheduling conflicts that have nothing to do with the participants or whatever. Or approve it and then disapprove it two hours before it starts. People think we are being weird when we warn them not to talk to the stake. They learn pretty quickly.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Maybe I've been looking at it all wrong.   I know that somehow 2 become one when they get married as husband and wife.  Maybe both should always be considered to be single.  

No, you're committing the fallacy of equivocation, which "occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in multiple ways, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."  The word "single" can mean various things, depending on the context.  When a word has multiple or ambiguous meanings, you've got to be careful when you take its meaning from one context and transplant that meaning into another context.

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah.

Sure.

Doesn't happen in the real world.  One does not do that.   One of the "unwritten rules" of leadership

I've seen in happen in the real world a few times, as long as the person asking such questions is respectful and prepared to follow the counsel of the leader after the questions are asked.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I've seen in happen in the real world a few times, as long as the person asking such questions is respectful and prepared to follow the counsel of the leader after the questions are asked.

I have asked my SP myself once.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Obehave said:

 I know that somehow 2 become one when they get married as husband and wife. 

Same way the Godhead becomes one: love and common purpose/ mission: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of the kids.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have asked my SP myself once.

Well there you go!

Now you will NEVER be an SP!  🤪

Link to comment

I am single, never married.

I have twice served as a counsellor in a bishopric, and I am currently serving as a member of our stake's high council. The recent clarifications are important not because anything changed but because we needed reminding, from what I can tell.

FWIW, our stake president is married to a woman whose first husband (to whom she was sealed) left her after the birth of their first child.

The second counsellor in our stake presidency lost his first wife and then married a woman who had returned to activity after years in the 'wilderness', with children from at least two different men.

Our stake executive secretary was married for years to a non-member wife, then she got baptised and endowed, and they were sealed. Now she has given up her membership and returned to being a 'pagan'.

Our assistant stake clerk has twice married and divorced the same woman.

Our stake YW president is only in her 40s but is already a widow.

Our stake RS president has a non-member husband.

Our stake clerk, like me, has never married.

The longest-serving member of our high council is on his third (and hopefully last!) wife, having gone through two previous divorces.

Another member of our high council has raised two fantastic sons on his own after his wife apostatised and left him.

So yeah, this is what the Church looks like in the 'real world', where we don't have the luxury of looking on anything other than the heart.

And also FWIW, in our last stake council meeting (which was poorly attended because of illness), 75 per cent of the high council members present had beards, including me! :D

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I am single, never married.

I have twice served as a counsellor in a bishopric, and I am currently serving as a member of our stake's high council. The recent clarifications are important not because anything changed but because we needed reminding, from what I can tell.

FWIW, our stake president is married to a woman whose first husband (to whom she was sealed) left her after the birth of their first child.

The second counsellor in our stake presidency lost his first wife and then married a woman who had returned to activity after years in the 'wilderness', with children from at least two different men.

Our stake executive secretary was married for years to a non-member wife, then she got baptised and endowed, and they were sealed. Now she has given up her membership and returned to being a 'pagan'.

Our assistant stake clerk has twice married and divorced the same woman.

Our stake YW president is only in her 40s but is already a widow.

Our stake RS president has a non-member husband.

Our stake clerk, like me, has never married.

The longest-serving member of our high council is on his third (and hopefully last!) wife, having gone through two previous divorces.

Another member of our high council has raised two fantastic sons on his own after his wife apostatised and left him.

So yeah, this is what the Church looks like in the 'real world', where we don't have the luxury of looking on anything other than the heart.

And also FWIW, in our last stake council meeting (which was poorly attended because of illness), 75 per cent of the high council members had beards, including me! :D

dang hippies!   think they can repent or sumptin and have free agency and get away with mistakes because of the atonment!  we ain't got nuthin like 'at!

Beards!   Harumph!

😁

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well there you go!

Now you will NEVER be an SP!  🤪

Dang.  I was looking forward to the experience!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

... And also FWIW, in our last stake council meeting (which was poorly attended because of illness), 75 per cent of the high council members present had beards, including me! :D

The true mark of a heathen! :D :rofl: :D 

:friends: 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

He would not need to answer - presumably he has prayed about the situation in HIS STAKE and made a decision.

All it would do is appear to be questioning HIS particular revelations on perhaps some situation you have no idea about.

Yes. Based on the details given here, this is something that is completely at his discretion (the makeup of the EQPresidency). He presides over it, and he can approve or deny whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Most (wisely) don't run roughshod over the ward recommendations, but it is completely his prerogative.

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

It might be. Like, if a SP had a personal preference that all aaronic priesthood holders wear white to pass the sacrament.

Or if they preferred that everyone face towards the temple when setting anyone a part for a calling.

Or, if their preference was that all high councilors must be married.

The first example has specifically been no-no'd by the handbook. The second example is just weird (I know that it's happened, but probably not very often).

The third one is similar to the case at hand. The stake president decides whom to call into the high council, and he can have a personal requirement that they all be married, if he wants. There's nothing contra-handbook about that. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The true mark of a heathen!

I know you're joking, but you actually just reminded me of something both topical and recent. A man who works as a director under our area presidency is visiting and took me to lunch yesterday. He brought up a conversation he had had with Elder Bednar about the importance of teaching the members not to be so uptight and culturally bound that they become judgemental and intolerant of differences. The goal is for Zion to be a refuge for anyone seeking its protection, even if they aren't ready or willing to join us formally. We had a really good chat on that!

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, rongo said:

The first example has specifically been no-no'd by the handbook.

Literally for decades (possibly forever?), and yet my first bishop here insisted on ignoring it ...

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Literally for decades (possibly forever?), and yet my first bishop here insisted on ignoring it ...

It wasn't codified until relatively recently (last several years or so), but it's been in many people's "unwritten order of things." 

I can say that white-shirt, suit wearing men like me are in the distinct minority now --- other than men older than 60 (I'm 46). I think "old fossil" holdouts are being swamped by shear numbers. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know you're joking, but you actually just reminded me of something both topical and recent. A man who works as a director under our area presidency is visiting and took me to lunch yesterday. He brought up a conversation he had had with Elder Bednar about the importance of teaching the members not to be so uptight and culturally bound that they become judgemental and intolerant of differences. The goal is for Zion to be a refuge for anyone seeking its protection, even if they aren't ready or willing to join us formally. We had a really good chat on that!

I think that is an excellent point, notwithstanding my previous purely-tongue-in-cheek contribution to the thread.  Failing to heed it might be considered the modern-day equivalent of straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel, and of omitting the weightier matters.  See Matthew 23:23-24.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...