Melchizedek priesthood quorums

[mordorbund]

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

The one running the meeting and the one presiding are two completely different things.  The way I understand the scriptures, as of right now if a HP is present, they must preside, even if they are not the one conducting the meeting.

My point is that sacrament meeting is different from other meetings. Specifically, it handles ward business and includes the administration of the sacrament. We have a number of meetings the 2nd and 3rd hour where someone outside the bishopric legitimately presides because that authority has been delegated to them by the bishop (or the stake president in the case of high priest groups and elders quorums). But none of these preside over the sacrament meeting because they are not the presiding high priest of the ward (and thus able to conduct ward business) nor do they hold keys over the administration of the sacrament. If either of these two elements are present, then the one presiding must do so through those keys. In the case of a counselor, he presides as a member of the governing council that includes those keys. In the absence of that governing council there are no keys. You have to find the stake president to find those keys. Then it comes down to how the stake president understands the scriptures and the handbook of instruction (it'll be interesting to see who is now "normally" designated), and that depends on what the president wants to focus on. I've heard different solutions enacted, based on different rationales, but ultimately each solution was carried out because that's what the stake president said to do.

[askandanswer]

Those who have been around for a while probably still remember the dissolving of ward Seventies quorums. Was that the late 70's or early 80's?

[Sunday21]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Yeah, I'm getting the ramifications now.  At first I mistakeningly thought it was they were just meeting together for 3rd hour, which wasn't that huge of a deal.  The complete reconstruction of things is a big deal.  

I am clueless. Why does having HPs and elders meet together matter?, other than one person doesn’t have to run a meeting?

[askandanswer]

I'm not saying that this is the reason, having not yet heard the conference, but there has been a strong trend for decades in the world of organisational management towards flatter, less hierarchical structures, less duplication and simplified communication and reporting. I think the rationale for one organisation doing a broad range of priesthood functions is stronger than the rational for dividing those functions across two organisations. 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Yeah, I'm getting the ramifications now.  At first I mistakeningly thought it was they were just meeting together for 3rd hour, which wasn't that huge of a deal.  The complete reconstruction of things is a big deal.  

We will never forgive you for your grave mistake @Jane_Doe 

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I am clueless. Why does having HPs and elders meet together matter?, other than one person doesn’t have to run a meeting?

For a hundred years or more, elders have met in a ward-level quorum while high priests have met a separate ward-level "group", because their quorum was stake-level and met only once a year. Doctrinally speaking, this is not a huge change -- not really a change at all, just an organizational restructuring. But we humans get invested in how our society does things, and change shakes the foundations of our understanding and assumptions. This is often a good thing, but is not painless.

[NeedleinA]

No more ward level PEC now either. Could either mean a free Sunday OR filled with another Ward Council??

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

No more ward level PEC now either. Could either mean a free Sunday OR filled with another Ward Council??

My vote is for a free Sunday Morning...

 

But that's me being selfish.

Edited April 2, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[NeedleinA]

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

My vote is for a free Sunday Morning...

That would be my vote as well. You could always call for an emergency Ward Council if something big came up and it couldn't wait until the next week, but as a rule of thumb I would leave it open rather than fill it for meeting's sake.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

My vote is for a free Sunday Morning...

3 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

That would be my vote as well. You could always call for an emergency Ward Council if something big came up and it couldn't wait until the next week, but as a rule of thumb I would leave it open rather than fill it for meeting's sake.

You have to at least have correlation.

[skippy740]

One benefit to all this, is that those of us who identify as "misfits", normally meet with and are ordained only to the office of Elder.  (Yes, I know about the article about "Only an elder.")

But the EQ deals with more misfits (divorced/single men) than the HP group normally did.  By combining them all, will make the priesthood quorum more cohesive of a group, rather than a young "still trying to figure out our way and still have younger babies" quorum vs older/stable quorum.

Just my musings as an admitted "misfit" myself.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

My vote is for a free Sunday Morning...

But that's me being selfish.

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

I would leave it open rather than fill it for meeting's sake.

I do not remember ever having been to a bishopric-led or stake-led meeting that happened "for meeting's sake". In every case that I can recall, the meeting was held for a valid (and important) purpose, which was never "let's have a meeting so we can say we did."

Church meetings are criticized a lot, and I can understand why. In the bishopric, sometimes it seems like the whole Sunday is taken up with meetings. But those meetings exist for an important purpose. Perhaps the meetings run too long and/or aren't well-organized. That should be improved. But I heartily disagree with the wholesale bias against meetings that I often see portrayed in various venues (including here), extending even to the demand to shorten the meeting block. Those who view everything through the lens of "no more meetings" miss the entire point. And the implicit cynicism only makes things worse.

[Sunday21]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

I do not remember ever having been to a bishopric-led or stake-led meeting that happened "for meeting's sake". In every case that I can recall, the meeting was held for a valid (and important) purpose, which was never "let's have a meeting so we can say we did."

Church meetings are criticized a lot, and I can understand why. In the bishopric, sometimes it seems like the whole Sunday is taken up with meetings. But those meetings exist for an important purpose. Perhaps the meetings run too long and/or aren't well-organized. That should be improved. But I heartily disagree with the wholesale bias against meetings that I often see portrayed in various venues (including here), extending even to the demand to shorten the meeting block. Those who view everything through the lens of "no more meetings" miss the entire point. And the implicit cynicism only makes things worse.

Dear @Vort, You are a lucky man. As a former RS presidency member. I recall meetings that were called ‘just to have a meeting’. In fact, as we are on the subject...a stake leader drove over 2.5 hours to address us. We stayed after the 3 hour block to hear her. I specifically remember this instance because I had loudly resisted attending on the grounds that the stake RS people NEVER had anything to say. I loudly predicted to the rest of the presidency that this would be yet another waste of time and...it was! Once again the stake RS person had prepared absolutely nothing. She had zero content. She had clearly spent a lot of time getting dressed and doing her makeup and zero minutes on preparing content. She smiled and and told us how much she enjoyed her calling and at one point gestured to her ‘Teaching No Greater Call’ manual and said how much she enjoyed it. 

I teach RS now. For some reason, this means that I attend Teacher Training with the Sunday School teachers. The brother who teaches Teacher Training is proud that he never prepares. Instead we read through the lesson and if someone wishes to make a comment, then this becomes the lesson. Now I admit that this approach does lead to interesting content, most of the time but not always. 

I calm myself down by telling myself that a lot of the process is training leaders for the world to come. At some point, they will realize that you need to prepare for a meeting. But in the meantime...the meetings for the sake of meetings drives me nuts!

[Vort]

I'm sorry to hear it. I am happy to report that, in places I have experience in, I have not seen this. Maybe it's a Canadian thing.

[NeedleinA]

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

I do not remember ever having been to a bishopric-led or stake-led meeting that happened "for meeting's sake".

Perhaps simply a difference in experiences. True, not all places are the same. My area is clearly different than yours then.
I've attended Ward Council & PEC for about 7 of the last 8 years. Our Ward is a very stable ward, fairly boring as compared to other Wards in our stake. Our Ward boundaries are such that their is very little poverty (Bishop store house needs), no transient apartment complexes, mostly only professionals, etc. The most exciting thing that really happens is a baby is born, someone goes on a mission or YM are doing their cookie fundraiser.

Because we don't shoulder a lot of major issues (excluding those the Bishop handles for repentance), Ward Council meetings can easily turn into nitpicking minor issues. A 15 minute issue drags on for a full 60 and then resumes the following week as well.

What "we" drag on for 4 weeks of Ward Council can be accomplished in 2 instead. Rather than solve the problem, we have maintained a lets meet each Sunday attitude regardless of needs. With so few needs the meetings often digress to figuring out which way is the best way for hymnals to be put on the pews, binding down or up. My brother's ward is exactly the opposite, they have heavy needs in his ward and a week without Ward Council would have a huge ripple affect on them all.

Each ward is different, so I'm simply opposed to holding scheduled meetings when there is nothing of significance to discuss or address. Rather turn the time back to the individuals to be with their families instead. I in no way want "no more meetings", I want effective meetings for a purpose. If this is not the plan, then don't hold the meeting.

Edited April 2, 2018 by NeedleinA

[Vort]

@NeedleinA, do you perchance living Canada?

[NeuroTypical]

I have an evil twin in the High Priest's group.  He is outspoken, set in his beliefs, and has a reputation of occasional bluntness or cluelessness to the point of offense.  That's the twin part.  And he's usually wrong - that's the evil part. 

I'm looking forward to Sunday, because I'll be able to plop down next to him.  Gonna do my absolute level best to get along with this brother in Christ.  I anticipate them forming a second Elder's quorum for just the two of us.

[NeedleinA]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

@NeedleinA, do you perchance living Canada?

@Sunday21 and I are neighbors!

[Vort]

Just now, NeedleinA said:

@Sunday21 and I are neighbors!

You didn't, um, you know, sit next to her at Church recently, did you? Apropos of nothing in particular...

[NeedleinA]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

You didn't, um, you know, sit next to her at Church recently, did you? Apropos of nothing in particular...

Neighbors, but ward boundary lines pass directly between us, so, nope it wasn't me on the pew next to her.

[Traveler]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 6:58 PM, Midwest LDS said:

I just got released from my calling! (Elders Quorum counselor) First time an announcement over the pulpit at conference has so directly affected me lol.

 

If you check your LDS Tools  app - you will find you do not have a calling.

 

The Traveler

[Sunday21]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm sorry to hear it. I am happy to report that, in places I have experience in, I have not seen this. Maybe it's a Canadian thing.

More like a disorganized ‘everyone is a convert’ kind of thing!

Let’s face it, if you are born lds, you probably make more appropriate life choices. You are probably less likely to choose a career or a spouse that does not fit well with the lds lifestyle.

To be lds, in low density mormonville means that most of the time you have both your paid job and a part time job, your calling. If I were to make the choice again, I would not choose a career job that requires most of my life. 

I have no idea how most families manage to balance. Virtually every family has both spouses who work. In addition we have activities almost every week! How do parents manage to drive the kids to so many activities? Anyway we are pretty fraught here. No wonder inactives to actives is 5:1.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Sunday21

[Sunday21]

7 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

@Sunday21 and I are neighbors!

I must mount up the dog sled and mush on over to your igloo! The walrus blubber is on me!

[Sunday21]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

You didn't, um, you know, sit next to her at Church recently, did you? Apropos of nothing in particular...

Snort! Snort!

[Anddenex]

On 3/31/2018 at 8:05 PM, Carborendum said:

Then, what we were discussing the other day: What happens when all three members of the bishopric are gone one Sunday?

I would assume things remain constant, the stake president assigns who will be presiding when all three bishopric members are gone, and I would assume it would fall to a high priest; however, it very well now could fall to the EQP.