If the Bishop and one counselor are not on the stand

[Guest mormonmusic]

Chances are, in the absence of the bishopric, there won't be any ward business to conduct.

I don't see any reason why a High Priest couldn't handle some sustainings and releases based on direction given by the Bishop beforehand. If I was a Bishop, I wouldn't hestitate to let a capable HPGL handle the callings and releases so people can get moving on their callings. Again, I think this could be answered by a consult to the general handbook. If no guidelines exist, it's a matter of judgment.

Regarding whether the president of the teacher's quorum could conduct a meeting, this is also allowed, although I don't think it has to be the teacher's quorum president necessarily, although this would be a logical choice.

D&C 20:49-56 indicates that priests and teachers can "take the lead" in meetings where there is no higher priesthood thatn their office available.

Deacons have no such meeting leading authority in this chapter that I can see.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I don't understand what you mean here.

The scripture describes who officiates, while in latter times we use the terms "presiding" and "conducting" when referring to the roles of leadership in Church meetings. These mean two different things.

For example, a Stake President may preside, while a Bishop may conduct the meeting.

Does "officiating" mean conducting, or does it mean presiding? It's not clear to me. That's what I meant.

[MarginOfError]

I don't see any reason why a High Priest couldn't handle some sustainings and releases based on direction given by the Bishop beforehand. If I was a Bishop, I wouldn't hestitate to let a capable HPGL handle the callings and releases so people can get moving on their callings. Again, I think this could be answered by a consult to the general handbook. If no guidelines exist, it's a matter of judgment.

Regarding whether the president of the teacher's quorum could conduct a meeting, this is also allowed, although I don't think it has to be the teacher's quorum president necessarily, although this would be a logical choice.

D&C 20:49-56 indicates that priests and teachers can "take the lead" in meetings where there is no higher priesthood thatn their office available.

Deacons have no such meeting leading authority in this chapter that I can see.

A member of the bishopric presents sustainings to the ward. (except, of course, for callings from the stake). See pages 45 - 46.

"And is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires."

You could make a case for a deacon presiding in the absence of teachers out of that verse.

[Guest mormonmusic]

What constititute an elder when a HP is in attendance?

I think this means an elder who has not yet received the office of High Priest may officiate a meeting when there is no HP present.

[MarginOfError]

The scripture describes who officiates, while in latter times we use the terms "presiding" and "conducting" when referring to the roles of leadership in Church meetings. These mean two different things.

For example, a Stake President may preside, while a Bishop may conduct the meeting.

Does "officiating" mean conducting, or does it mean presiding? It's not clear to me. That's what I meant.

Officiate is not specific to either presiding or conducting. To officiate is to carry out the responsibilities of one's office. Teachers officiate in their office by preparing the Sacrament (among other things). Priests officiate by administering the Sacrament and baptizing (among other things). Elders officiate by doing their home teaching (among other things).

In other words, if authorized, an elder may officiate in all the duties of a high priest when there is no high priest available to perform those duties. It seems, to me, to be understood that this reflects a temporary measure.

But these things relate to the duties of the priesthood office, not the callings (if that makes sense to anyone other than me).

[mrmarklin]

Does it state anyway who is to sit with the Bishopric member on the stand if the other members are not there during sacrament meeting? I know any or the Stake Presidency can but what's the logical choice if they can not attend? The high counselor assigned to the ward? Does it even need to be a high priest? I know in singles ward or a branch it's different but in a typical Utah ward lets say.

The senior High priest of the ward presides in the absence of the bishopric.

True Story:

I was the 2d counselor in the HP leadership abt. 20 years ago. All the bishopric, the HP group leader and 1st counselor were out of town. I got a call from the Stake informing me that I would preside over sacrament meeting next Sunday!! The 1st counselor in the Stake presidency sat with me on the stand, and everyone was acting a little sheepish. Someone had dropped the ball!!!! I was pretty far down the totem pole so to speak, but I was the senior HP that day.

(edit) I guess I actually "Officiated" at that meeting. The Stake leader would have been the one presiding. Note that the procedure was in strict fulfilment of the scripture previously quoted.

Edited May 19, 2010 by mrmarklin

[Gwen]

anyone the bishop assigns conducting to can do that. i think he would still do the ward business but he can delegate the rest all he wants.

my 13 yr old stepson conducted my 8 yr old's baptism (that was a yr ago). the branch pres presided and thought it was a great idea.

[martybess]

I

Also, I'd be leery of leaving someone inexperienced on the stand alone in case some of the less common situations at Church happen -- such as someone opposing a sustaining, or someone who violates protocols of sacrament meeting in their talk. If the person was new they might not know how to handle such a situation.

So, there are practical reasons for choosing to have more than one person on the stand when 2 members of the Bishopric are away.

The two times I've been thrown off a bit is when a member walked up the the pulpit while the bishop was giving announcements talked into the mic about something.

The second time is when someone apposed a sustaining. (That person apposed the sustaining of the stake president). I was involved in the High Council court on that one..... it was nasty! Took over a day! The member brought in 7 witnesses (that's the maximum they are allowed unless it's changed now). By the way that member was my home teacher and I loved him, it was a sad day. We all cried allot when he was disfellowshipped. He has never came back but he was wrong, you can not indoctrinate others concerning our leaders or false doctrine. Sorry that was way off base for this thread. LOL

...

..

[martybess]

my 13 yr old stepson conducted my 8 yr old's baptism (that was a yr ago). The branch pres presided and thought it was a great idea.

great idea!!!

[MarginOfError]

The senior High priest of the ward presides in the absence of the bishopric.

True Story:

I was the 2d counselor in the HP leadership abt. 20 years ago. All the bishopric, the HP group leader and 1st counselor were out of town. I got a call from the Stake informing me that I would preside over sacrament meeting next Sunday!! The 1st counselor in the Stake presidency sat with me on the stand, and everyone was acting a little sheepish. Someone had dropped the ball!!!! I was pretty far down the totem pole so to speak, but I was the senior HP that day.

If the first counselor of the stake presidency was there, you weren't presiding.

[mrmarklin]

If the first counselor of the stake presidency was there, you weren't presiding.

Yes, that's correct. I edited my comment. I was officiating.

[martybess]

The senior High priest of the ward presides in the absence of the bishopric.

I think ppl think this is policy but I now think due to this thread that it's really up to whoever the bishop/stk pres assigns. And the reason it's good to have 2 up there is help correct errors if any. (The Sac prayers and ward business).

..

[rameumptom]

They cancel church.

Actually, if all the bishopric is gone, either the high priest group leader or the elder's quorum president can conduct the meeting. They are the next two (along with their assistants/counselors) in authority in a ward.

The Elder's Quorum President holds actual keys, but the High Priest Group Leader represents the Stake President, who is the President of the MP and High Priests Quorum. The HPGL works via delegated responsibility of the SP's keys of authority.

[rameumptom]

The scripture describes who officiates, while in latter times we use the terms "presiding" and "conducting" when referring to the roles of leadership in Church meetings. These mean two different things.

For example, a Stake President may preside, while a Bishop may conduct the meeting.

Does "officiating" mean conducting, or does it mean presiding? It's not clear to me. That's what I meant.

Whoever conducts is conducting. But the highest level person (often the person conducting) is also the person presiding. If the High Priest Group Leader is the main person there, he is presiding and possibly conducting.

[Justice]

I'm wondering if it has anything to do with keys?

It's not just the meeting itself, it's presiding over the ordinance of the Sacrament.

When I was the 1st Counselor, the Bishop and 2nd Counselor were both out of town for a few weeks. I ended up having to go out of town one of those weeks. I contacted the Stake President and he is the one who told me the duty would then fall to the EQ President, and not the HP Group Leader. This Stake President was well versed in Church Governance, and unless it's changed, I'd say that's the way to go.

Whether you think it is a worthwhile discussion or not, there is somethign that can be learned by how important it is for the right people to be in the right place at the right time in the Church. There is an accountability in the Church, and as a leader you should try to learn the subleties so you will be prepared for when it happens to you.

I am going by the instruction I was given until I hear otherwise.

[MarginOfError]

It's not just the meeting itself, it's presiding over the ordinance of the Sacrament.

When I was the 1st Counselor, the Bishop and 2nd Counselor were both out of town for a few weeks. I ended up having to go out of town one of those weeks. I contacted the Stake President and he is the one who told me the duty would then fall to the EQ President, and not the HP Group Leader. This Stake President was well versed in Church Governance, and unless it's changed, I'd say that's the way to go.

Whether you think it is a worthwhile discussion or not, there is somethign that can be learned by how important it is for the right people to be in the right place at the right time in the Church. There is an accountability in the Church, and as a leader you should try to learn the subleties so you will be prepared for when it happens to you.

I am going by the instruction I was given until I hear otherwise.

That's great for you and your stake, but that direction is not given in the scriptures nor in the Church Handbook of Instructions (and hence my ambiguity comments from before).

[pam]

In some wards perhaps, but not always.

I've often seen the high priest group leader sit up on the stand with a lone counselor, and have thought that maybe it's just really lonely up there, secluded from everyone else, and it's nice to have a companion.

It was a joke Wingers

[mrmarklin]

I don't know why we're still arguing. The procedure in the Scripture is clear.

In general the bishop is in charge of the aaronic priesthood. It is NOT the Presiding authority except as granted by the Melchizidek priesthood. High priest preside, and have precedence. Note that Bishops are always High Priests!!!!

[martybess]

It's not just the meeting itself, it's presiding over the ordinance of the Sacrament.

When I was the 1st Counselor, the Bishop and 2nd Counselor were both out of town for a few weeks. I ended up having to go out of town one of those weeks. I contacted the Stake President and he is the one who told me the duty would then fall to the EQ President, and not the HP Group Leader. This Stake President was well versed in Church Governance, and unless it's changed, I'd say that's the way to go.

Our stake president told me this week it's the HP but then I was talking with a bishop at work about it and he said his stake president told him it's the EQ. Personally I think it's the HPGL. Just because he does not hold keys (keys must be defined here) does not disqualify him, he is a high priest. The bishop's counselor does not hold keys either but acts under the direction of the bishop's keys and is commissioned, set apart to even give temple recommend interviews. I have been EQ pres twice and HPGL once and the same person (Stake President) laid his hands on my head and set me apart. Yes as EQ pres and held keys but the word keys here needs to be defined and does not apply here. His key's are important to the qrm he's over but those key's are not over the rest of the congregation during sacrament meeting.

I also think it's a good idea to know these procedures Justice....those who have been put into this situation can appreciate being prepared! :)

..

Edited May 20, 2010 by martybess

[rameumptom]

It's not just the meeting itself, it's presiding over the ordinance of the Sacrament.

When I was the 1st Counselor, the Bishop and 2nd Counselor were both out of town for a few weeks. I ended up having to go out of town one of those weeks. I contacted the Stake President and he is the one who told me the duty would then fall to the EQ President, and not the HP Group Leader. This Stake President was well versed in Church Governance, and unless it's changed, I'd say that's the way to go.

Whether you think it is a worthwhile discussion or not, there is somethign that can be learned by how important it is for the right people to be in the right place at the right time in the Church. There is an accountability in the Church, and as a leader you should try to learn the subleties so you will be prepared for when it happens to you.

I am going by the instruction I was given until I hear otherwise.

The stake president, as the president of the MP could have delegated it to the HPGL as well. A bishop's counselors do not hold keys, but can conduct and preside over meetings simply because they are high priests.

[MarginOfError]

The problem is, as I've mentioned before, is that there is no "line of succession" for who presides over Sacrament meeting. The Handbooks discuss who normally presides, but doesn't bother to discuss what to do in the rare instances that the normal people aren't available.

There is no where that indicates that those who preside have to hold keys. In fact, in branches, branch presidents may be elders, preside over meetings, and they hold none of the keys a bishop holds, yet they still preside.

I really dislike the insistence that there must be a proper order and procedure where none is indicated. With the evidence available in the scriptures and the handbooks, you can come to any number of conclusions as to what is the "right" way, but really, all you have is a number of "plausibly right ways."

It seems silly to worry about something that the Lord never bothered to worry about. It's extremely Mosaic in fashion, especially for something that doesn't matter. So let's put it simply. The bishop has the authority to assign a person to preside over Sacrament meeting, and he has the flexibility to assign any person of his choosing. Different individuals will have different preferences, but if you disagree with the preference, does that really make any difference in the ultimate scheme of life, the universe and everything*?

* 42

[martybess]

The stake president, as the president of the MP could have delegated it to the HPGL as well. A bishop's counselors do not hold keys, but can conduct and preside over meetings simply because they are high priests.

I don't know why we're still arguing. The procedure in the Scripture is clear.

In general the bishop is in charge of the aaronic priesthood. It is NOT the Presiding authority except as granted by the Melchizidek priesthood. High priest preside, and have precedence. Note that Bishops are always High Priests!!!!

Sorry for dragging this out ppl maybe I'm being impossible here but is this the scripture your referring too?

(D&C 107)

10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a bright to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

11 An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present.

Is "when the high priest is not present" what your referring too when you say the scriptures are clear?

..

Edited May 20, 2010 by martybess

[rameumptom]

Yes. The bishop or stake president can assign another high priest to preside, OR can assign an elder in case there are no other high priests present. They can also assign the Elders Quorum President, as he does hold keys.

[not_ashamed]

Wow. I honestly had no idea it could get that complicated. I didn't realize there were so many rules and chains of command. This has been an eye opening post.

[bl8tant]

We have a tradition in our ward: when an 8-year-old is baptized, he or she sits next to the bishop in the first Sacrament meeting after their baptism. I guess we should add them to the chain of command too!