Jump to content

High Council qualifications


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

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 was called as YM president in 2006. The Handbook then current stated that bishops could not require white shirts or ties. I went online and looked up as many past versions of the Handbook as I could find. They all included the same prohibition or were silent on the matter.

Here's the language from the 1999 Handbook:

Quote

Priesthood holders should wash their hands thoroughly with soap or a disposable towelette before preparing, blessing, or passing the sacrament. They should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during this ordinance.

And here's the 2006 Handbook:

Quote

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing and jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. White shirts and ties are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance.

 

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

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.

It is at his discretion though I wish the Presidency would stop soliciting input and just hand pick people at this point. We have an Elder’s Quorum President. He is just trying to get counselors approved. I half-expect this EQP to quit like the last one did if he has to keep giving them new names.

Link to comment

Our Stake split last November and so I can't say what is going on in the other Stake. In our Stake they have 9 or 10 HC members, two were fairly newly called from our ward but both weren't what you would call active-they show up now of course sometimes. Our Bishopric is going to change, it too was newly called as it's a new ward. The Bishop is moving and one of the counselors doesn't show up on Sunday much so I suspect he'll get released when the Bishop gets released. Maybe he does stuff mid week, who knows. He and his wife were totally inactive prior to covid all of sudden showed up at the temple dedication with recommends so who knows what that was about. Our area here is enamored with people with good jobs because that means they are righteous and they get these types of callings like Bishoprics and HC and then you get people like a previous HC who also attended the Catholic Church and participated with them, he and his wife come sometimes now. Another one talked about the evils of CNN, which i'm sure wasn't the assigned topic. In all honesty, I don't even care anymore, I just live my life and who says what and who gets called to what, is not on me others can live with the consequences of it

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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

:friends: 

Wrong again.

I am the ONLY one true Mark! 😡

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, rongo said:

I pointed out that the principle of governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed applies --- while they had the authority to ramrod it through, without buy-in and genuine consent, it was doomed to fail.

I once served in a small ward that struggled to cover the bare minimum of bases, where it was the same few people who were doing most of the work and trying to pick up the slack where it was needed most.  I complained to the bishop about somebody who wasn't doing what was expected of them.  He reminded me that everyone in the ward is a volunteer, and told me that he was grateful for everything that anybody did, and he was serious.  So while I was spending my time and energy in resentfulness, he was spending his time and energy in gratitude.  He was a far wiser man than me. 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, manol said:

So while I was spending my time and energy in resentfulness, he was spending his time and energy in gratitude.  He was a far wiser man than me. 

I am glad you have joined the board. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've had that conversation with stake presidencies before. "If you were just going to do what you were going to do anyway, and not even consider the input, then why ask for the input? Just do what you're going to do." The answer was that they wanted our blessing. :) 

They have my blessing. The same blessing the rabbi recommended for the Czar.

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They have my blessing. The same blessing the rabbi recommended for the Czar.

 

Ha,ha! May God bless and keep the stake presidency --- far away. :)

Link to comment

I should state that this Stake Presidency is an abnormality in my experience. In most stakes their goal is to back the bishops and make things run smoothly and function primarily as advisors and teachers to the wards and sticking to high-level goals, the conferences they run, and a few youth and stake activities.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

The handbook specifically says that high councilors can be single.  So if a SP says that he won't call anyone who isn't married to that calling then he is going against the handbook.

Likewise, we had a bishop 4 years ago who had my son go and sit back with us and not allow him to pass the sacrament because he was wearing a blue and white shirt.  Later he apologized.  We never spoke to him about it, and we let our son know right from the beginning that the bishop was in the wrong but we loved and supported him and everyone makes mistakes sometimes. 

But it showed that having something specifically prohibited in the handbook is no guarantee.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The handbook specifically says that high councilors can be single.  So if a SP says that he won't call anyone who isn't married to that calling then he is going against the handbook.

"Can be single" makes it an option. It doesn't mean the stake president has to call single men as high councilors. Only calling married men as high councilors is not going against the handbook. Going against the handbook would be doing things that the handbook specifically says you can't do. 

Like requiring white shirts. :) 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, rongo said:

"Can be single" makes it an option. It doesn't mean the stake president has to call single men as high councilors. Only calling married men as high councilors is not going against the handbook. Going against the handbook would be doing things that the handbook specifically says you can't do. 

Like requiring white shirts. :) 

Of course he doesn't have to call single men.  But refusing to call a single person once you find out he isn't married is against the instructions in the handbook.  Refusing to extend this calling to someone because of marital status seems to be doing something the handbook says you shouldn't do.

When the handbook says "these callings can be extended to single members" and the stake president essentially says "not in my stake they can't", that's a red flag.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment

I was just surprised when I read an lds living article in which an openly gay man was serving on the high council.  I thought you had to be married in the temple to serve on the high council but apparently not. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When the handbook says "these callings can be extended to single members" and the stake president essentially says "not in my stake they can't", that's a red flag.

I wouldn't say so.  The handbook says "can be."  If the stake president is believes that his stake needs high councilors who are married that's within his authority to say so.  Nothing prohibits him from calling only married high councilors.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I wouldn't say so.  The handbook says "can be."  If the stake president is believes that his stake needs high councilors who are married that's within his authority to say so.  Nothing prohibits him from calling only married high councilors.

Right, the handbook says "can be".  So in a stake where the president says "no they can't be", that contradicts the Handbook.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I wouldn't say so.  The handbook says "can be."  If the stake president is believes that his stake needs high councilors who are married that's within his authority to say so.  Nothing prohibits him from calling only married high councilors.

Or he could use some other method. Maybe some kind of revelation-based criteria? Just spitballing here.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mbh26 said:

I was just surprised when I read an lds living article in which an openly gay man was serving on the high council.  I thought you had to be married in the temple to serve on the high council but apparently not. 

When we hear of "openly gay" this or that's (a prominent one was the missionary who made Facebook videos), it gives certain impressions that seem shocking. All it means (in your article, or with the missionary) is that they are attracted to men. Not that they are openly living a gay lifestyle (which is the impression that "openly gay" conveys).

I wish there more precision of language with this (cue @Nehor posting a gif of Katie Holmes from "The Giver"). :)

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

When we hear of "openly gay" this or that's (a prominent one was the missionary who made Facebook videos), it gives certain impressions that seem shocking. All it means (in your article, or with the missionary) is that they are attracted to men. Not that they are openly living a gay lifestyle (which is the impression that "openly gay" conveys).

I wish there more precision of language with this (cue @Nehor posting a gif of Katie Holmes from "The Giver"). :)

*deletes gif*

What? I was keeping that around for completely unrelated reasons.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

When we hear of "openly gay" this or that's (a prominent one was the missionary who made Facebook videos), it gives certain impressions that seem shocking. All it means (in your article, or with the missionary) is that they are attracted to men. Not that they are openly living a gay lifestyle (which is the impression that "openly gay" conveys).

I wish there more precision of language with this (cue @Nehor posting a gif of Katie Holmes from "The Giver"). :)

When I hear that phrase I just assume it means "out".  As in, people know that the person is gay.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, mbh26 said:

I thought you had to be married in the temple to serve on the high council but apparently not. 

Nope. A single man (divorced, but was never sealed in the temple) in my last ward served on our stake high council for quite a while before he was released—to serve as a counselor in our ward’s new bishopric. That one surprised me, and it wasn’t all that long after that the church released their statement clarifying that single members can hold almost all callings with relatively few exceptions. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Nope. A single man (divorced, but was never sealed in the temple) in my last ward served on our stake high council for quite a while before he was released—to serve as a counselor in our ward’s new bishopric. That one surprised me, and it wasn’t all that long after that the church released their statement clarifying that single members can hold almost all callings with relatively few exceptions. 

Just not in my stake. I don’t think I would have got my current calling if my bishop and the previous bishop hadn’t gone to bat for me.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Just not in my stake. I don’t think I would have got my current calling if my bishop and the previous bishop hadn’t gone to bat for me.

Maybe you're the reason for the policy. :pirate: 💣

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Maybe you're the reason for the policy. :pirate: 💣

No, I checked. The timeline doesn’t work. Plus if they really wanted to get rid of me they wouldn’t have taken the assistant part off my calling when they had the chance. I think they like me at least a little. It is mostly the secretary that gets warnings about flirting with apostasy and stuff like that when he pushes back.

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

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