John_Pack_Lambert

But the EQP can be an elder and is he not presiding in elder's quorum? This makes me think that either the High councilor or a member of the stake presidency should preside. I think when I was in a YSA ward on at least one occasion when our whole bishopric was gone, a member of the stake presidency came to preside, although the EQP conducted the meeting. On the other hand, I believe in my fiancee's branch, the Branch President is designated as presiding, except when a member of the stake presidency is there. He is an elder, but there are at least 4 high priests in the branch. They even had a high priest group leader. A statement by Elder Christopherson in general conference gave me the impression that this is how it is meant to be. For that matter an emeritus seventy does not preside at every meeting he attends. I think this is why we have the rule of the new high priest quorum. Only the current members of the high priest quorum are functioning high priests. This would indicate to me that if any member of the bishopric, stake presidency, high council, or a functioning patriarch is present, they preside. If not any of those, than the EQP presides, it does not matter if there is a man in the audience who is an emeritus seventy, a former area seventy, or who was patriarch back in the Bloomfield Hills Michigan Stake before he relocated to Utah (our patriarchs seem to like to do that, even though the two I am thinking of were both converts born and raised in the greater Detroit area). It is current functioning priesthood office, not ordination that matters.

Policies on temple work as changing over time is a issue of change in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is not heavily traced. Much of this is because of the sacred nature of the ceremonies. One thing to remember if you do come across any discussion of such changes is that God speaks to people in their language, and so the form of God's message is translated and revised to meet our current understandings. A big change that I have been able to trace is the level of the role of the temple in the lives of Church members. The most dramatic is the increased participation in baptisms for the dead. I had a bishop who grew up as an active Church member in Colorado, he turned 20 in the mid-1970s, and he never once did baptisms for the dead as a youth. On the other hand I remember treaching a primary class here in Michigan where one of the girls in the class had already been to do baptisms for the dead 3 times. It was in November and her birthday had been back in February, so she had been 12 for 10 months or so. This was all ward sponsored trips, and before the more recent rise of family baptism times. The added role of ministering for young women compliments the added roles for both young men and young women in the temple announced last December. The changes announced in general conference might best be seen as part of that change.

In the 1950s new convert men were ordained deasoncs, then teachers than priests. Today they are just ordained priests. Policies on the time between baptism and temple ordinances have changes over time as well. In the 1920s Elder Neal A. Maxwell's parents were married in the temple although his father had only been a member for about three months at the time. I am not sure when the policy of waiting a year from baptism for endowments or sealings was instituted. It may have been the 1930s, because some things I have read suggest that the during World War II policy that allowed for civil marriage and then sealing in the temple whenever it could be done was seen as an excemption. James E. Faust, who would be counselor in the First Presidency to Gordon B. Hinckley, and his wife Ruth initially planned to get married civially, but Brother Faust managed to get a long enough furlough from the army that he was able to go to Salt Lake City and get married in the temple to Ruth there. I have also been told that in areas far from the nearest temple in the 1950s the policy was that couples could get married civilly and then travel to the temple and get married. Today this policy exists for any country that requires civil marriage, although the policy gives a limited, maybe few weeks depending on various issues time to do the temple sealing, otherwise the couple has to wait a year. In the 1970s if a couple got married civilly the requirement was to wait a year for a temple sealing. This seems to have been the policy until about 2000. In about the later year the policy was changed a little. Now if one or both of those getting married has been a member less than a year, they can get married civilly and then get sealed when the most recent convert of them reaches a year since baptism. Also, although couples who get married civilly not because of recent convert status have to wait a year to get sealed in the temple, that is the only ordinance they need to wait a year for. That is, they can receive their own endowments or do vicarious work for others as quickly afterward as they get a reccomend. I am not aware of this being a change from the past.

Changes in the way the priesthood is organized are nothing new. It was not until the 1880s that ordination of young men to the Aaronic priesthood became regular. However that mainly just involved ordination as deacons. The current plan to advance from deacon, to teacher, to priest was not implemented until I believe 1908. President Eyring in his talk of geographical wards and comapnies was onto something. What he didn't point out was that bishop's in early Utah oversaw temporal matters, but it was not until the 1870s that wards as congregations and not just geographical areas came about. Stake clerks were paid until the 1920s at least, in part because they and bishops oversaw a lot of temporal matters now handled by full time employees of the Office of the Presiding Bishopric. In Salt Lake City they had one large church meeting in the tabernacle until I believe the 1870s. It was also not until the 1870s that the Salt Lake Stake was reduced to covering just Salt Lake County. In 1901 the stake was reduced to just Salt Lake City, and in 1904 Salt Lake City was divided into 4 stakes. Still when Bryant S. Hinckley was president of the Liberty Stake in Salt Lake City, his stake had I believe 22 wards and 20,000 members. The largest stake study has a combined number of I believe 17 wards and branches, and two of the Tongan Stakes in Utah have 15 wards a piece. New stakes often have just 5 wards, and stakes with over 12 wards and branches are probably less than 2% of the 3000+ stakes. Seventies were a local calling with responsibility for missionary work at the local level until the 1980s. My father was the ward seventies group leader at the time I was born in 1980, essentially what a ward mission leader is today. I believe each stake also had seven presidents of the 70, somewhat like the later stake mission presidency, which in turn was elimanated in 2002. 2002 also saw stake missionaries become ward missionaries. In the early 1950s most stakes, including the Detroit Stake, did not have full time missionaries serving in their boundaries. The idea was that in a stake missionary work would be carried on by the members through stake missionaries and the seventies quorum. My grandmother in the Oakland California Stake was a stake missionary at this time. She and her companion, they designated companionships, would go out a few nights a week, and they had a specific teaching pool. A bit later stake missionaries and full time missionaries would operate in the same areas, but basically in competition against eachother. As Elder Holland alluded to in the 19th-century the progam was known as block teaching, and those involved spoke of themselves as Melchezidek priesthood holders called to proactively act in the Aaronic priesthood. This was not an assignment to all brethren, but a select few. Ward teaching was what it was known as until the early 1960s, and I think then it was also not all breathren. Home teaching was inaugurated in the early 1960s and was part of the larger work of priesthood correlation. The Church in the 1960s also had adult Aaronic priesthood classes. This was for adults who had not been advanced to the Melchizedek priesthood, and they went here instead of to elders quorum. This was often brethren returning from long periods of inactivity, plus recent converts. The missionary age was 20 in the 1950s, than in about 1960 moved to 19. On the other hand Hugh Nibley in 1927 went on a mission at age 17. Until 1900 a mission call was a possiblity for any priesthood holder, no matter his age. Couples of various ages would serve, but so did many married men who left behind a wife and children. Joseph Fielding Smith left behind a wife who had recently had a miscarriage when he went on his mission. On the other hand David O. McKay just a little before had gone on a mission as a single young man. The shift to the modern missionary system was gradual. The first full time, single sister missionaries were called in 1901. The 3-year, married man with wife plan for mission presidents was not fully implemented until the 1930s. Mission president counselors being local brethren called as such did not really come into being until the 1950s, although I had a roommate at BYU who on his mission about 2000 in Russia had a mission president setrving without any conselors. On my mission in Las Vegas from 2000-2002 my mission president always had 3 counselors at a time. When my grandfather was president of the Appleton Wisconsin Branch about 1960, there was a dependent branch under it. This is what would be called a group. In the 1990s my fiancee's branch was formed, with just one Melchizedek Priesthood holder in it. I believe current directives say a branch in a stake cannot be formed without at least 5 active full tithe paying Melchezidek Priesthood holders. There are groups in many stakes, some language-specific, and some like the Channel Island group off the coast of California, that operate under existing wards or maybe on occasion branches. In Districts and Missions, a times there is an administrative branch formed with the district or mission president being the branch president. This branch exists to hold the records of those living beyond the boundaries of formal wards and branches, and supervises groups that exist outside boundaries as well. In stakes it is thought that wards can do the supervising of all groups. On my mission there was a ward with 3 counselors in the bishopric, one of the counselors was the leader of the Spanish-language group.

I believe in the absence of all three members of the bishopric the EQP presides. This is what we did in a YSA ward I was in. Or does the member of the high council preside? This is why a totally new Church Handbook of Instructions, that formally answers that question seems needed. Multiple elder's quorums should be by clear assignment, but should not be de facto recreations of the HP/Elders split. In a ward, like one in Provo my brother and his wife were in about 7 years ago, with 2 Elders quorums and one small high priest group, the high priests will probably be split off quickly for the short term. The request to implement it quickly means that stake presidents will probably be very busy this week. Another thing affected is high preist and elders activities. I know my ward had periodic elders quorum activities, we did one where we went to a gun range and shot shotguns last November for example. Another plus is that the oddities of fellowshipping older male converts is elimanated. It was often a good question where to but a new convert who was a 55-year-old male.

Plus, the stake presidency could leave in the current EQP. My fiancee's branch already did a joint priesthood meeting. However they did have a designated High Preist group leader, so that calling is elimanated. This means the gender balance in ward council will be a little closer. Also ward Preisthood Executive Comittee (PEC) meetings have been elimanted. All matters will now be either handled in bishopric meeting or ward council. However expanded bishopric meetings could be used for some sensative issues. Stake PEC meeting is now redesignated the high council meeting. These changes alone seem to be big enough to merit a new Church Handbook of Instruction. Especially when combined with new directives on making at least two adults president in all classes and activities for children and youth, new directives on interviewing, the replacement of home/visiting teaching with ministering, the inclusion of young women in ministering.

I think a big change is that some people focused on getting off the lesson, and not on connecting with the people in meaningful ways. The sad thing is that some got off lessons with very little spiritual value. However I think in my case too often I preped for hometeaching by reading the ensign and figuring out how to present that message, as opposed to trying to figure out the actual needs of my families.

In my stake we have the personal storehouse project. A lot of this focuses on helping those, especially in the inner city and YSAs, who are marginally employed, living in povetrty etc. However it is also partly focused on identifying and connecting with resources. This is also a long standing issue with the bishop's storehouse. In the 1930s when the modern bishop's storehouses were begun it was largely about food and other physical resources. We still have storehouses that house such. However there is also a storehouse of less tangible goods. In my region and probably elsewhere the Church had developed a list of people with various skills, from plumbers, to electricians, to counselors to lawyers. If a member needs electrical work, or a laywer to help with non-payment of say contract work as a carpenter's assistant, the bishop contacts someone in the bishop storehouse. A contract is drawn up with the member with those skills, and they are paid through fast offering funds to wire a house, fix plumbing, write a letter to someone who has not paid a needed debt, such as for time as a nanny or what have you, or to provide mental health counseling. I am not sure I have fully explained all that is involved here. However it is not just diapers, canned corn and macaroni noodels that come from the bishop's storehouse, but various other services that are needed to met the necesities of life.

An additional issue is that some of us have dealt with issues of addition to pornography and masturbation, and we are less than sure that regular counselors will recognize these as issues. Especially when as a teenager we had a psychiatrist who interpreted our not presently having a girlfriend as "not liking sex" or something like that. I don't remember exactly, but my mother felt red flag worry. I think my health plan has a $20 co-pay per visit to a counselor, and yet these counselors often want to at least start out on weekly visits. Some want to standardize to 2 visits per month per year, that adds up to $420 dollars annually. Another issue is that American medical treatment is over dependent on medication. Some of us neded medication for sure, and periodic visits to psychiatrists, which are another set of $20 co-pays. Some plans even count psychiatrists as non-primary physicians and will bill $40 co-pays per visit. Psychiatrists are not meant to be counselors, but many people like me absolutely need medications. Even if I was doing biweekly visits to a counselor I would still need my medications. So yes, LDS family services is a good option. Even more so for pre-marital counseling, which is one of the ones I did.

One issue with an earlier statements. Here in Michigan less than 0.5% of the population is LDS, so it is hard to say we are high densisity LDS. Yet the Church has an LDS Family Services office here in Michigan,. employing multiple full time conselors.

A very high amount of counseling in the US is done by religious leaders. Bishops are encouraged to advise seeking trained professional counseling, and will pay for counseling not only with LDS family services, but with other trained professional in some cases. I know my bishop has paid for some members to receive conseling for an organization that provides indepth help in dealing with sexual addiction. The reality is that people seek aid much quicker from bishops than seeking out professional counseling aid. Bishops are going to have people making statements about physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

On the issue of men never going alone on ministering visits to single sisters, the one place where this may not have always been fully followed was in YSA wards. Still I have known couples who met when the man was the woman's hometeacher. It might be wise if people at least consider the policies on dating/ministering mixing. With the recognition that there are gradients of non-consensual immorality, and even some behaviors that are not a violation of the law of chastity, such as kissing and lingering hugs, should still not be done non-consensually, this is something people should at least consider. Possibly more interesting is that the document uses ministering, and yet was released before the change in terminology. Although, in the past not all ministering visits were connected to home teaching. I remember one Sunday me and another brother in the ward made two seperate trips to the hospital to give presithood blessings. That brother was a high priest, although a young one, and I am not sure that he was home teacher to either of the people we visited. I think he got roped in because A-he is just an awesome person and B-he lives cloese to that hospital of our ward members. I am not sure how I got roped in. I know my dad always dilligently lived to the have another male present. On the other hand, he took me along on some occasions at least when I was as young as ten. How old a child has to be to make the visit ok is hard to say. I also was assigned as a hometeaching companion at age 12. I have to say I am glad of that, because my hometeaching companion was the best ever.

I think two deep applies to seminary class. However when I was a seminary student, some of my teachers did have another adult who sat in on the class. Two deep does not mean two teacher, it means two adults. One can be the designated teacher, the other just needs to be present. The bigger change may be how this affects the way full-time seminary teachers carry on their work. There was one a few years ago who went to prison for sexually abusing a young woman. The Church fired him before he even went to trial, because even if he had been not guilty, which was not very in doubt, he had violated other employment policies as well. With the end of high priests groups, this does free up some more adults in many wards for youth callings. The person who I will assume is my ministering companion until I am told otherwise, which may well happen with the expansion of the elders quorum etc, was a Sunday School teacher doing it jointly with his wife. When I was in the Sunday School presidency we had some of our Sunday School classes that were taught by married couples. A proactive Sunday School presidency could make being present easy, although that assumes that none of them double up as teachers. My ward primary I think has been double assigning even female teachers for the last two or so years.

With Sunday School classes, at short term response for youth classes is to have a member of the Sunday School presidency there. When I was in the Sunday School presidency I rotated in visiting youth classes, when I was not filling in. I always filled in as the lone brother. My understanding was that no lone adult male present was required for primary but not youth classes, although it may have been a minsunderstanding on my part. I also with primary would leave the door open in my co-teacher was not present. The last time when I subbed for my mom, that was when I was in the Sunday School Presidency, before I had been a primary teacher for almost 2 full years straight, I left the door open, but the father of one of my students was sitting in the hallway, I think possibly because his son was dealing with having just had a little sister die, but maybe intentionally to make sure that we lived by the rules. The placement of windows into the doors of all rooms used for classrooms is clearly also linked to trying to avoid problems. One issue, should bishop's office doors have windows? I have to admit I have not always wanted anyone to know I am interviewing with the bishop.

"The Church" did not know about Rob Porter. His local bishop's were told information on him. There is no evidence that anyone higher up knew of it. We need to be precise about these things. Also, the claim "bishop's are not trained counselors" is clearly meant to underestimate their training. 20 years ago my uncle who is a professional family counselor was involved in giving training to bishops. Beyond this bishops regularly refer many cases to LDS family services. For their part, LDS family services counselors in some areas spend most of their time far from their home office, traveling to various church buildings, sometimes hundreds of miles away, to counsel with members in closer proximity.

I am less than sure this is actual a major change. Although I was not technically aware of it, I read a statement on a Deseret News discussion on this issue where a current bishop stated that existing policy allowed for a second person in an interview if so requested. 15 years ago I had a bishop who not only always had another priesthood holder just outside his office when doing an interview with a female (this was a YSA ward so it had no children), but he did not even fully shut his door. I know that the Church has had a abuse hotline since the mid-1990s for bishops to contact. I am not sure the statements to never counsel people to remain in abuse and to never counsel against reporting illegal authority were ever explicit before, but neither of those are actual changes in policy. At least since the 1980s, and probably earlier, teachings have clearly stated that abuse is a legitimate reason for divorce. Abuse in all forms was the subject of a major talk given by President Hinckley in October 1994 general conference, and more stringent policies against abuse were announced by him in a talk in either late 2001 or early 2002. The one possible change is that now all youth classes need to have at least 2 adults present, whereas before it was just for cases where the teacher was a male. Note this is not a requirement for two teachers. Only one person needs to be a teacher of record, and the other person can be provided on a rotational basis.

Actually, if you look back at the mission they created last year, includimng two new missions in the Salt Lake area, you can see it as building up to the surge. I am pretty sure that the brethren planned this change for a while, and that they took actions a year ago to prepare for it. There are four anticipated reasons numbers will keep up. 1-with men being able to go at 18, the drop out between high school graduation and time to leave on a mission that is sometimes quite severe will be reduced. Many faithful men who would go on missions when they leave high school by waiting another year get distracted for that goal. This will not happen as much with the new time frame. 2-it is extemely difficult in some circumstances for people to leave on a mission when they have started schooling and more so if they go in the military. There are people who are faithful Church members who would have loved to go on missions but had other obligations. These people will be more likely to serve under the new rules. 3-The lower age for sisters will greatly increase the number of sisters going. The marriage/mission dilema will be less pronounced. I have had female friends who wanted to serve a mission, but then had a man they new return from a mission and decide to marry him instead. This will be much less likely with the new age rules. 4-In theory, more missionaries will mean more converts, and more converts will mean more missionaires.