Ward "Succession"

[Guest]

We just had an interesting discussion in priesthood that I wasn't very clear on the answer.  I honestly don't know what HB1 says or any other principle for that matter.

The bishop and the first counselor were both out of town this weekend.  The second counselor was somewhat inexperienced but he knew he needed some backup on the stand.  So, he called the Elders' quorum president if he could join him.  He, too, was out of town.  He called up the HP group leader who joined him on the stand.  The HPGL made the comment that the line of presiding succession was correctly taken through the EQ Pres. First.  Then the HP group because the HP group is a stake entity instead of a ward level entity.  Not only that, but the group leader holds no keys.  The EQP does.

Ok.  But if it is about keys, then technically, the counselors in the bishopric don't hold keys either.  They may be considered borrowed under conditions such as this.  But does he really hold them?

Beside that, I was under the impression that the position of bishop is actually (in addition to the president of the AP) as presiding high priest of the ward.  The two counselors, by virtue of position are the next senior HPs.  So, if it is about the next senior HP, then it would fall to the HP group leadership.

In my father's ward, he was called as the secretary to the HP group.  It happened one Sunday that the entire bishopric and the group leader and his counselors were all gone on the same Sunday.  So, he presided and conducted by himself.  He didn't have any 'backup'.  Should he have?  Should it have been the EQP?  For the record, when my parents related to me this odd situation, they never mentioned the EQP at all.  It may have been that they too were gone, but they didn't feel like they needed to relay that information to me in telling me the account.  Or it may have been that their understanding was that it was a HP thing.

This is highly unusual.  But what is the standard here?

[e-eye]

When I was in a bishopric it always defaulted to the HP group leader and down that line - We never got to the secretary or beyond that so it was never discussed if the Elders Quorum presidency was to sit on the stand.  In all my years we always had at least a bishopric member but would default to the HP group leadership so if one member of the bishopric was there and nobody else they wouldn't have to sit alone. 

[person0]

My understanding is that if the Bishop and counselors are gone, it would fall to the HP Group leader.  If all High Priests are gone it would fall to EQP if all Elders are gone it would fall upon the Priests, then Teachers, then Deacons.  If none of them are available, then you go home due to lack of priesthood leadership.

Edited March 19, 2018 by person0

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We just had an interesting discussion in priesthood that I wasn't very clear on the answer.  I honestly don't know what HB1 says or any other principle for that matter.

The bishop and the first counselor were both out of town this weekend.  The second counselor was somewhat inexperienced but he knew he needed some backup on the stand.  So, he called the Elders' quorum president if he could join him.  He, too, was out of town.  He called up the HP group leader who joined him on the stand.  The HPGL made the comment that the line of presiding succession was correctly taken through the EQ Pres. First.  Then the HP group because the HP group is a stake entity instead of a ward level entity.  Not only that, but the group leader holds no keys.  The EQP does.

Ok.  But if it is about keys, then technically, the counselors in the bishopric don't hold keys either.  They may be considered borrowed under conditions such as this.  But does he really hold them?

Beside that, I was under the impression that the position of bishop is actually (in addition to the president of the AP) as presiding high priest of the ward.  The two counselors, by virtue of position are the next senior HPs.  So, if it is about the next senior HP, then it would fall to the HP group leadership.

In my father's ward, he was called as the secretary to the HP group.  It happened one Sunday that the entire bishopric and the group leader and his counselors were all gone on the same Sunday.  So, he presided and conducted by himself.  He didn't have any 'backup'.  Should he have?  Should it have been the EQP?  For the record, when my parents related to me this odd situation, they never mentioned the EQP at all.  It may have been that they too were gone, but they didn't feel like they needed to relay that information to me in telling me the account.  Or it may have been that their understanding was that it was a HP thing.

This is highly unusual.  But what is the standard here?

I don't think keys are in any way related to who sits on the stand, or conducting.

but as to your question:

"If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates the high priests group leader, but he could authorize another priesthood holder instead."

Edit: source: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church/18.2.1?lang=eng#182

Edited March 19, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

He called up the HP group leader who joined him on the stand.  The HPGL made the comment that the line of presiding succession was correctly taken through the EQ Pres. First.  Then the HP group because the HP group is a stake entity instead of a ward level entity.  Not only that, but the group leader holds no keys.  The EQP does.

Yeah, this is incorrect. As TFP quoted from the handbook, it's the stake president's call, but normally either a member of the stake presidency would preside (probably with the HPGL and elders quorum president on the stand), or the HPGL would be asked to preside. Keys per se have nothing to do with the matter; the keys are the bishop's, and in his absence, the only relevant keys belong to the stake president. The office of high priest exists to provide presidency and leadership, so the stake president would normally go, in order of preference, with (a) the high priests group leader, (b) the first assistant, (c) the second assistant, (d) the most senior high priest available in the ward. If for some bizarre reason there was no high priest available in the ward, I would guess that the stake president would simply go to the meeting and preside personally, or else send one of his counselors.

A few years ago, while I was in the high priests group leadership, the bishop, his first counselor, and the high priests group leader (and the other HPGL assistant) were all gone on the same Sunday. The remaining bishopric counselor asked me, as the only HPGL member present, to join him on the stand. As I recall, I was the second assistant at the time, and joked (truth in jest) that he was really scraping the bottom of the barrel asking me to sit up there with him. I believe we actually had a counselor in the stake presidency presiding at that meeting.

[askandanswer]

I think I've seen a similar situation about twice, or maybe three times in the last 20 years. In both times, its played out that in the absence of the Bishopric and HPGL,. the position of presiding has gone to the EQP rather than the counsellors in the High Priests Group. Which, now that I think about it, seems a little odd, as that then seems to create a situation of an Elder presiding over a High Priest. But then again, perhaps that is what the Stake President requested/instructed.

[Guest]

@Vort,  @The Folk Prophet,

Thank you both.  Something about the EQP didn't quite sound right.

 

[zil]

Seems to me that if the entire bishopric are absent, it's sort of like when the professor doesn't show up for class - you give him 10-15 minutes and then leave.  (Perhaps this is why they don't give women the priesthood.)

[mrmarklin]

The senior high priest presides in absence of the Bishopric.  That is through the HP group, and then EQ.  Of course having the Stake involved helps, because that President is high over everyone. Remember however that he is president of HP quorum of stake. That’s why senior HP in ward would preside. 

 

This is happened in our ward and second counselor in HP group presided. That was me at the time. A member of Stake presidency was also on the stand. 

Ive only witnessed this situation once in my life. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by mrmarklin

[Colirio]

3 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

This is happened in our ward and second counselor in HP group presided. That was me at the time. A member of Stake presidency was also on the stand. 

If a member of the stake presidency was in attendance at your meeting, wouldn't this mean that he presided while you conducted? 

[mrmarklin]

2 minutes ago, Colirio said:

If a member of the stake presidency was in attendance at your meeting, wouldn't this mean that he presided while you conducted? 

Yes, that’s technically true. My syntax error.  

 

There is a scripture in the D and C on this, but I’m too lazy to look it up.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We just had an interesting discussion in priesthood that I wasn't very clear on the answer.  I honestly don't know what HB1 says or any other principle for that matter.

The bishop and the first counselor were both out of town this weekend.  The second counselor was somewhat inexperienced but he knew he needed some backup on the stand.  So, he called the Elders' quorum president if he could join him.  He, too, was out of town.  He called up the HP group leader who joined him on the stand.  The HPGL made the comment that the line of presiding succession was correctly taken through the EQ Pres. First.  Then the HP group because the HP group is a stake entity instead of a ward level entity.  Not only that, but the group leader holds no keys.  The EQP does.

Ok.  But if it is about keys, then technically, the counselors in the bishopric don't hold keys either.  They may be considered borrowed under conditions such as this.  But does he really hold them?

Beside that, I was under the impression that the position of bishop is actually (in addition to the president of the AP) as presiding high priest of the ward.  The two counselors, by virtue of position are the next senior HPs.  So, if it is about the next senior HP, then it would fall to the HP group leadership.

In my father's ward, he was called as the secretary to the HP group.  It happened one Sunday that the entire bishopric and the group leader and his counselors were all gone on the same Sunday.  So, he presided and conducted by himself.  He didn't have any 'backup'.  Should he have?  Should it have been the EQP?  For the record, when my parents related to me this odd situation, they never mentioned the EQP at all.  It may have been that they too were gone, but they didn't feel like they needed to relay that information to me in telling me the account.  Or it may have been that their understanding was that it was a HP thing.

This is highly unusual.  But what is the standard here?

There is no requirement that anyone sit on the stand with a lone counselor. He can ask anyone. If the entire bishopric is gone, the Stake President assigns someone to preside over the sacrament and other meetings.

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates the high priests group leader, but he could authorize another priesthood holder instead."

Edit: source: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church/18.2.1?lang=eng#182

Yep.

On another note, I remember when my ward actually considered the issue of secession last year.  Not "succession", where we figure out the line of authority, but "secession", where we figure out if we wanna stay loyal to Salt Lake or shift loyalty to another church.  Here's how it went down.

[Traveler]

During my life time there has been an interesting evolution of presiding authority at meetings.  During my military experience there were times that regular (local) meetings could not be attended (or did not exist) but often a few would gather as a circumstance would allow.  Under these condition endowed priesthood holders would preside.  I was aware of circumstances where such gatherings were presided over by a priest holding the Aaronic priesthood.  I do not know what the current policy is for servicemen serving for long periods in areas where there is no official authority – I speculate that under such condition meetings can be officially held and the sacrament presented.

As a missionary there were many occasions where we would preside at meetings when branch presidents or their councilors were not present.    At the time I understood that this authority of missionaries to preside came from the mission president.

Following my missionary experience, often I would travel to places where there were not regular church services.  The instruction for a long time was that I was to check with my bishop for permission to hold sacrament services with the sacrament ordinance.  This has changed to current procedures where I can gather with other saints (and non-saints) for Sabbath discussions but without authority to have the sacrament ordinance.  Interesting – there have been times when I have been traveling with my bishop to places where we could not attend prescribed services.  We would meet for Sabbath discussions but without the sacrament ordinance.

As a youth, I remember that on general conference and stake conference Sunday’s that in the evening a brief sacrament service was held.  Also on regular Sunday services the sacrament ordinance was presented at 3 different meetings but currently, since the block program has become standard the sacrament ordinance is presented at only one meeting and on conference Sundays there is no sacrament ordinance.

I personally feel that any Sunday I have to spend without the sacrament ordinance leaves me spiritually incomplete and longing for that ordinance – that something is missing from my Sabbath and my covenant to keep the Sabbath holy (among other things).  I hope that others may understand that I do not demean other faiths but I feel a profound emptiness at their Sabbath services void of the sacrament ordinance presented by “proper” priesthood authority and keys.  Some are very interesting as to their ritual and “circumstance” and even their doctrinal instruction but I have a strong spiritual sense that my Sabbath is incomplete without the sacrament ordinance. 

 

The Traveler

[bytebear]

All I can say is I feel bad for the deacon who has to pass the sacrament to the stand.  I hated not knowing who to go to first.

[zil]

I'm not sure whether this thread is slightly comforting or not.  It may be unique to me, but the concept of "presiding" is one I really never gave much thought to until I became RSP.  And then, it was along the lines of "does being president mean I preside?  And if so, what does that mean / look like?"  Because never, ever, ever in 40+ years of Church "education" was I trained on how to "preside" over anything, or even that women can / do ever preside.  So the fact that men are uncertain about some of this tells me that perhaps it's not entirely me, and maybe there's a general lack of detailed presiding documentation or training...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

During my life time there has been an interesting evolution of presiding authority at meetings.  During my military experience there were times that regular (local) meetings could not be attended (or did not exist) but often a few would gather as a circumstance would allow.  Under these condition endowed priesthood holders would preside.  I was aware of circumstances where such gatherings were presided over by a priest holding the Aaronic priesthood.  I do not know what the current policy is for servicemen serving for long periods in areas where there is no official authority – I speculate that under such condition meetings can be officially held and the sacrament presented.

I don't know what is officially written, but here is what we actually did when I worked on distant military bases.

Two bases were big enough that we had official branches.  There was a branch president and rotating Sunday School teachers.  We even tried to do some home teaching.  This was truly difficult.  You think you've got it rough with people's schedules?  HAH!  We never knew when one person was transferred or if they were only out on a mission or when they'd get back.  No notice and no way to contact.

One base had a chaplain who happened to be LDS.  He said we had one inactive person on base who actually listed her religion as "Mormon" on Army paperwork.  But she also told the chaplain that she was inactive.  We had another that considered himself as active.  But his duties kept him from coming to meetings a lot of the time.  Then there was the Chaplain and me.  We had a prayer together, we blessed the sacrament in turn and we served one another.  Then we did a bit of scripture study.  And we got to know one another.  I'm guessing that since he did this full time and being a chaplain and all, this was all kosher.

Another base was a Firebase -- Green Berets.  While I was being driven around my driver happened to mention that he was a "cussing Mormon".  I told him I was too.  I don't think he believed I actually cussed.  And I didn't feel the need to disabuse him of his assumption.  We made an appointment to have sacrament in the rec room on Sunday.  He happened to go out on patrol that day.  So, no meeting.  I chose to sit and study scriptures and pray a bit.  I was wondering about serving myself the sacrament.  But as I prayed about it, the scripture came to my mind,"Where two or three are gathered together in my name..."  Well, one is not "two or three".  So, I supposed it wasn't right for me to do that.

Other bases had some meetings.  But they were difficult to find.  And they weren't as organized as the larger bases.  And because they had more than two or three people, they seemed a bit more chaotic.  But I believe we did the essentials.

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm not sure whether this thread is slightly comforting or not.  It may be unique to me, but the concept of "presiding" is one I really never gave much thought to until I became RSP.  And then, it was along the lines of "does being president mean I preside?  And if so, what does that mean / look like?"  Because never, ever, ever in 40+ years of Church "education" was I trained on how to "preside" over anything, or even that women can / do ever preside.  So the fact that men are uncertain about some of this tells me that perhaps it's not entirely me, and maybe there's a general lack of detailed presiding documentation or training...

It just means that if and when push comes to shove, the buck stops with you. It's a plain matter of stewardship.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm not sure whether this thread is slightly comforting or not.  It may be unique to me, but the concept of "presiding" is one I really never gave much thought to until I became RSP.  And then, it was along the lines of "does being president mean I preside?  And if so, what does that mean / look like?"  Because never, ever, ever in 40+ years of Church "education" was I trained on how to "preside" over anything, or even that women can / do ever preside.  So the fact that men are uncertain about some of this tells me that perhaps it's not entirely me, and maybe there's a general lack of detailed presiding documentation or training...

Presiding in this sense means that we have one who is going to be inspired to make an executive decision on the spot if something unusual happens.

I believe that even in relief society a member of the bishopric is supposed to sit in on the meetings, correct?  He is actually the one presiding at that meeting.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It just means that if and when push comes to shove, the buck stops with you. It's a plain matter of stewardship.

Yeah, no training on stewardship either (or not under that name / directly).  The last time prior to this that I had any stewardship or presidency was the Laurels class, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't really conscious of that - more of "responsibility".

I figured out what to do / what it meant a long time ago, was just pointing out this gap (perhaps only in me or my imagination) between expectation and training for said expectation; as well as a potential gap between training for men vs. women in the Church.

NOTE: I think those who are parents get better training than any of us for this kind of thing.

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe that even in relief society a member of the bishopric is supposed to sit in on the meetings, correct?  He is actually the one presiding at that meeting.

No, no member of the bishopric is supposed to sit in on the meetings.  They can if they wish, but no one ever does in my ward except when the bishop teaches (and once when the SP's wife (one of our teachers) asked him to help her with her lesson, so he sat in until his helping was done).

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Presiding in this sense means that we have one who is going to be inspired to make an executive decision on the spot if something unusual happens.

My 11th grade English teacher was one of those people we tend to describe as "slightly off" (in a likable if perplexing sort of way).  Every now and then he would jab an index finger at the sky and shout, "Command decision!"  And announce some change he was making on the spot for our class.  It was quite amusing.

I have no problem making executive decisions on the spot.  Whether they're inspired or right is a whole other question.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

My 11th grade English teacher was one of those people we tend to describe as "slightly off" (in a likable if perplexing sort of way).  Every now and then he would jab an index finger at the sky and shout, "Command decision!"  And announce some change he was making on the spot for our class.  It was quite amusing.

I have no problem making executive decisions on the spot.  Whether they're inspired or right is a whole other question.

I don't think "inspired" is relevant. It's ideal, of course. But one who presides still presides even if they aren't inspired. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Maybe wards might want to look into having a "designated survivor"-someone higher up in leadership who will be there if everyone else is gone away for the weekend. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, bytebear said:

All I can say is I feel bad for the deacon who has to pass the sacrament to the stand.  I hated not knowing who to go to first.

Whoever's on the stand just points to the presiding authority so the deacon can start there.

For the record, we pass first to the presiding authority, not as a way to "honor" him or some such nonsense, but because he is responsible for the administration of the sacrament and should be passed to first in case he sees some irregularity or for whatever other reason wants to redo the ordinance.

[Vort]

"Preside" --> Latin pre "before, in front of" + sedeo "to sit"

Literally, the president is the person who sits in front of the group. In other words, s/he leads the council. This is the ancient idea of a gathering of Saints that we're recently trying to get back to, where a group (quorum, class, whatever) of Saints is a council, with the president sitting at the head and facilitating the discussion.

That's how I see it, anyway.