"Succession" with presidency counselors - doctrine or policy or tradition?


jerrop
 Share

Recommended Posts

("Succession" is really not the right word, but my vocabulary fails me sometimes...)

When I was in Elders Quorum, I had two first counselors move away (on two separate occasions, of course). Both times, my second counselor was released and then made first counselor, with the new counselor called as second counselor. The first time, the old second counselor, a wonderful man fairly young in the church, felt honored and expressed his surprise. I hadn't thought much of it initially; I had no specific role for one vs the other.

The high councilor said something about "an order of things" in relation to this. I've been thinking since about it and trying to pay more attention to changes in certain callings.

I've seen this occur in the First Presidency (I believe it's a fairly formalized standard there), Stake Presidency, Elders Quorum, Aaronic Priesthood. I've seen too many changes to bishoprics to keep them straight. Don't know about Relief Society, Primary, or Sunday School. It did not happen in my Young Men Presidency, but I expect that was because we wanted specific people working with specific quorums. I suspect Young Women Presidencies are the same.

So the question in my mind is whether this is a doctrine or policy, or if it's just tradition? I can't find a clear scriptural reference, nor have I found anything in either handbook. It doesn't bother me either way, and doesn't have any particular bearing on my testimony, I just find myself interested in administrative matters in the church.

Does anyone more knowledgeable about this have an answer?

If there's an answer to this somewhere ellse, please point me there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.  You covered a lot of ground.  So, let me rephrase and see if I understand your question correctly.

If a president (stake president, elders' quorum, etc) moves, retires, etc. then the first counselor rises up and becomes the new president.  This is not doctrine, but common practice.  

Can I point your somewhere about this?  No, I don't think I can prove a negative in this instance.  But I do have my personal experiences.  I believe it is quite practical to do it this way.  But I've seen it done other ways.

This is simply a custom in some areas.  It isn't even Churchwide.  It often does happen simply because of practicality.  The first counselor probably worked very closely with the president in the execution of his duties.  So, he's got a good handle on what needs to be done.  He's an obvious choice.  But this is in no way doctrine.

We had a beloved stake president that was retiring and moving away.  A high councilor whom we had great respect for was called as the new stake president.  He called two new counselors (one who was previously a counselor, one who was a bishop from another ward).

He was released from the calling a few years later and another called.  He was a bishop from another ward.  He was then called to be a mission president. His first counselor was called as the new stake president.

I have similar stories about elders' quorum presidents and HP group leaders.  Sometimes they completely revamp the entire leadership.  Sometimes, they shift seats.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jerrop

It does happen a lot huh! But it is the order of things in the church to "move up the ranks" of leadership and administration. As amissiomary, you go from junior companion to senior companion, to district leader, to zone leader, to assistant to the president. There are variations to this. I was made a district leader the same time I was a madsenior companion and I knew multiple people who went from district leader to assistant or senior companion to zone leader. But it is common to increase in stewardship in order to grow personally. Aside from revelation, that may be why it happens that way.

 

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jerrop said:

("Succession" is really not the right word, but my vocabulary fails me sometimes...)

When I was in Elders Quorum, I had two first counselors move away (on two separate occasions, of course). Both times, my second counselor was released and then made first counselor, with the new counselor called as second counselor. The first time, the old second counselor, a wonderful man fairly young in the church, felt honored and expressed his surprise. I hadn't thought much of it initially; I had no specific role for one vs the other.

The high councilor said something about "an order of things" in relation to this. I've been thinking since about it and trying to pay more attention to changes in certain callings.

I've seen this occur in the First Presidency (I believe it's a fairly formalized standard there), Stake Presidency, Elders Quorum, Aaronic Priesthood. I've seen too many changes to bishoprics to keep them straight. Don't know about Relief Society, Primary, or Sunday School. It did not happen in my Young Men Presidency, but I expect that was because we wanted specific people working with specific quorums. I suspect Young Women Presidencies are the same.

So the question in my mind is whether this is a doctrine or policy, or if it's just tradition? I can't find a clear scriptural reference, nor have I found anything in either handbook. It doesn't bother me either way, and doesn't have any particular bearing on my testimony, I just find myself interested in administrative matters in the church.

Does anyone more knowledgeable about this have an answer?

If there's an answer to this somewhere ellse, please point me there.

I've really only seen it in the first presidency. More of a policy thing to help smooth the transition, altho that doesn't mean there can be an exception if necessary. For everywhere else id definitely put anything likevthat under tradition, at best or happy coincidence. It does make some sense tho; the junior members have experience.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 11:52 AM, Jane_Doe said:

It sometimes happens, but FAR from always.  It is neither tradition, policy, or doctrine.  

 

Agree – I think the word we want is - that it is a coincidence.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not doctrine, as callings are to be made by the Spirit, and any one worthy may fill a position. Here are words that may assist, Elder Packer, "It is not in the proper spirit for us to decide where we will serve or where we will not. We serve where we are called. It does not matter what the calling may be.

I was present at a solemn assembly when David O. McKay was sustained as President of the Church. President J. Reuben Clark Jr., who had served as First Counselor to two Presidents, was then sustained as Second Counselor to President McKay. Sensitive to the possibility that some might think that he had been demoted, President Clark said: “In the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks nor declines.”

EDIT: The only two callings and sustaining, modern day, that appear to be a matter of succession (senior apostle, or second senior apostle) is the prophet and the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share