Jump to content

High Council qualifications


mbh26

Recommended Posts

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

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