MarginOfError Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 In ward council meetings over the past year, it has been brought up several times that we "are supposed to have a Melchizedek Priesthood holder at every activity." It's usually brought up with respect to Relief Society activities.Now, I understand the line of reasoning here: have someone in the building for security purposes. Here's the rub--I can't find this policy in writing anywhere. Maybe I'm missing it (the CHI is a big, dense book), but I really can't find it in any obvious place. I'd be really interested in knowing the origins of this policy, as it comes up frequently enough that I would like people to know what is policy and what is perceived policy. Especially since recently I heard this graduate into "we must have two priesthood holders at every activity."So does anyone know where this comes from?Disclaimer: Don't get me wrong. I don't object to having priesthood holders at activities, particularly if the participants feel safer having someone there. I just think it's important that people also know that they don't have to have someone there in order to use the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic_Trish Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I've always heard this too and we've always followed it.....BUT I can't find it in the handbook either.....weird! I'll keep looking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightynancy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 particularly if the participants feel safer having someone there LOL most of the time it's a doddering old man. Great company, but my YW could kick more butt than he could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwen Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 i know i saw it in the handbook instructions for rs at one point, maybe in the old one and it's not in the new one? i was in one ward that was so strict about it the rs couldn't even take the trash out to the dumpster. not that we minded. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 The way it was always explained to me growing up. All activities of the church are under the direction of the Melchizedek Priesthood and therefore that is why there is always a member present or at least in the building at all functions. Even for RS and girls camps etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 All wards and branches in the Casa Grande AZ Stake have two or more Priesthood holders. They prefer the Elders Quorum, they are younger and stay awake at their posts. They are present to Guard the doors when the Scouts, Young Women & Men and RS meet. Also when the Family History Library is open. When I was in the CG 1st Ward, I was told it was because years earlier, one of the sisters was accosted by a street person when she was in the restroom during a RS Enrichment evening meeting. Here in the small Oregon branch, we have seldom had any of the men present. Of the women who come to the RS Evening function, there are at least two who are more than capable of ousting an unwelcome male. Now, there could have been a couple of HP sitting outside in a car near the entrance keeping watch. During the YW/YM evening meetings, there are the YM Presidency there. Our scouts always went to the next towns ward, as we only had two or four at any given time. My husband just can not understand why our RS doesn't have men guarding us. I told him, he is more than welcome to come, but we pretty much can defend ourselves. We are not frail, weak, or faint of heart. I am dang good at swinging a broom or mop and the utility closet is right there in the RS room. Once he has been to more pot lucks and dinners and gets to really know the sisters and brothers, he will see. I don't want to make the sisters appear tomboyish or mannish, it is just that the majority of us are not wishy, washy, faint at the sight of spiders or blood kind of women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew0059 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I've always understood it as Pam explained it- a M. Priesthood holder should be at activities as a representative of the Priesthood that forms the power of the Church. I've never heard of the origins- maybe it's one of those 'unwritten order of things'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 We never followed this rule when we snuck in to the church to play basketball. Ah, the folly of youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 I've spent a couple days at girls' camp with the idea being that they needed a couple of MP holders on "standby" in case anyone needed a blessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The way it was always explained to me growing up. All activities of the church are under the direction of the Melchizedek Priesthood and therefore that is why there is always a member present or at least in the building at all functions. Even for RS and girls camps etc. The priesthood holder that the RS is under refers to one of the Councilors in the Bishopric. All Auxilaries has one of the Bishops Councilors that oversees them. NOT to guard them, and it really isn't required that they alway be there. Such as Activity Days for the Primary girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The way it was always explained to me growing up. All activities of the church are under the direction of the Melchizedek Priesthood and therefore that is why there is always a member present or at least in the building at all functions. Even for RS and girls camps etc.That's something I've heard before, too. And I appreciation the feedback. Still, it doesn't really address the question of where it comes from.What's more, if that was the rationale, when did it change? The policy doesn't exist in the current handbooks, nor can I find it in the physical facilities guide. I'm not sure where else to look for it. I also don't recall it being in the 1998 edition of the CHI. When was it omitted? Why was it omitted?Personally, I'm kind of happy it was omitted. I'm not sure I like the implications behind the idea that the Relief Society can't properly have a function without Melchizedek Priesthood presence. You would think the Relief Society could act more independently and still meet the spiritual, social, emotional, and intellectual needs of its members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Personally, I'm kind of happy it was omitted. I'm not sure I like the implications behind the idea that the Relief Society can't properly have a function without Melchizedek Priesthood presence. You would think the Relief Society could act more independently and still meet the spiritual, social, emotional, and intellectual needs of its members.Maybe you're thinking this from a USA perspective? I lived in places in the world where I would not dare to go to a RS activity if there are no Priesthood holders present to ensure some sort of safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy740 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The Doctrine & Covenants frequently makes reference to the priesthood to "watch over the church".This might trump the CHI. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Maybe you're thinking this from a USA perspective? I lived in places in the world where I would not dare to go to a RS activity if there are no Priesthood holders present to ensure some sort of safety.And that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with this being something under local discretion. I just don't see the need to institutionalize it around the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mormonmusic Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 · Hidden Hidden I like the way our Bishop put it they announced a MP holder was to to be in the building during early morning seminary -- a new requirement in our Stake. He said "We didn't have any chapel-cleaning for you this month, so we have this for you now". I chuckled, as he was implying this was a bit of an onerous job. It struck a nerve and he got a BIG laugh from the group. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.