inherent nature of callings

[askandanswer]

Is there anything inherent in the callings of ward and stake clerk and ward and stake executive secretary that means they can only be undertaken by Priesthood holders? I’m aware that the Handbook specifies that these callings must be fulfilled by Priesthood holders, but that seems to be more to do with the handbook than the requirements and nature of the callings.

[Vort]

  On 5/31/2018 at 1:34 AM, askandanswer said:

Is there anything inherent in the callings of ward and stake clerk and ward and stake executive secretary that means they can only be undertaken by Priesthood holders? I’m aware that the Handbook specifies that these callings must be fulfilled by Priesthood holders, but that seems to be more to do with the handbook than the requirements and nature of the callings.

Expand  

I would guess that such things fall under the general umbrella of Priesthood duties.

In addition, clerks and executive secretaries are sometimes privy to the most sensitive personal information. I suppose it has been determined that men who hold these callings must therefore have demonstrated their absolute trustworthiness by being worthy Priesthood holders. There really is no equivalent marker for women; marital status is not normally relevant in such callings. But I'm tending toward my first idea as the root reason.

[Jane_Doe]

  On 5/31/2018 at 1:34 AM, askandanswer said:

Is there anything inherent in the callings of ward and stake clerk and ward and stake executive secretary that means they can only be undertaken by Priesthood holders? I’m aware that the Handbook specifies that these callings must be fulfilled by Priesthood holders, but that seems to be more to do with the handbook than the requirements and nature of the callings.

Expand  

Them currently being fulfilled by priesthood holders in a matter of policy, not doctrine.  

[Grunt]

Aren't they members of the Bishopric?  That's where they fall in LDS Tools.  Don't you have to be a Priesthood holder to be in the Bishopric?

[dellme]

  On 5/31/2018 at 2:00 AM, Jane_Doe said:

Them currently being fulfilled by priesthood holders in a matter of policy, not doctrine.  

Expand  

If you really want to go that route, the fact that the positions exist at all is a matter of policy not doctrine as they aren't found anywhere in the scriptures (assuming you are only counting things in the scriptures as doctrine). And considering a significant portion of "new mormons" completely ignore Paul's writings in Timothy, doctrine today more appears to be whatever "I" think is right.

They are priesthood holders b/c the authorities they represent and spent time with are priesthood holders.  Sometimes I really wonder if people think things through . . . in the error of #MeToo feminists within the Church and having two teachers in every class and having parents sit in on interviews with the youth are they really pining that the Secretaries and Clerks be female when these individuals will be spending significant amounts of time interacting alone with the Bishop or SP??

That is a recipe for disaster . . . le sigh.

Edited May 31, 2018 by dellme

[Vort]

  On 5/31/2018 at 2:14 AM, Grunt said:

Aren't they members of the Bishopric?  That's where they fall in LDS Tools.  Don't you have to be a Priesthood holder to be in the Bishopric?

Expand  

Technically, there are only three members of the bishopric, which comprises the bishop and his two counselors. The executive secretary is often loosely classified as a member of the bishopric, but he is more correctly labeled an assistant to the bishopric.

Yes, bishopric members must hold the Priesthood, and generally must hold the office of high priest. (The exception that I know of is bishopric counselors in singles wards, who are often elders.) There is no such office requirement for clerks and the executive secretary; they must simply be holders of the Priesthood, with no other office specification.

I reiterate that I believe the callings of executive secretary and clerk to be Priesthood areas of responsibility. I agree with @Jane_Doe that these are policy requirements; it would be at least conceivable (to my mind) that the general leadership might approve a woman to be a clerk or an executive secretary, much as they have approved women to be full-time missionaries (another Priesthood responsibility). But I also agree with @dellme that making a "policy/doctrine" distinction in this case probably is not very useful.

[askandanswer]

  On 5/31/2018 at 2:58 AM, dellme said:

IThey are priesthood holders b/c the authorities they represent and spent time with are priesthood holders.  Sometimes I really wonder if people think things through . . . in the error of #MeToo feminists within the Church and having two teachers in every class and having parents sit in on interviews with the youth are they really pining that the Secretaries and Clerks be female when these individuals will be spending significant amounts of time interacting alone with the Bishop or SP??

That is a recipe for disaster . . . le sigh.

Expand  

I don't think representing authorities is part of a clerk's calling, although perhaps it could be argued that an executive secretary represents a bishop or Stake President. 

I agree with you that the possibility of problems would increase if you had female clerks and exec secs spending significant amounts of time interacting alone with the Bishop or SP. I'm not sure if this is sufficient reason to not call females into these roles. 

[Jane_Doe]

  On 5/31/2018 at 3:43 AM, askandanswer said:

I don't think representing authorities is part of a clerk's calling, although perhaps it could be argued that an executive secretary represents a bishop or Stake President. 

Expand  

When the stake RS president visits our ward, she is there as a representative of the Stake President, and frequently discusses messages the stake leadership as a whole wants to share.

[askandanswer]

  On 5/31/2018 at 3:45 AM, Jane_Doe said:

When the stake RS president visits our ward, she is there as a representative of the Stake President, and frequently discusses messages the stake leadership as a whole wants to share.

Expand  

Its not the same for clerks.They generally stay in the background and look after the books. 

[CV75]

  On 5/31/2018 at 1:34 AM, askandanswer said:

Is there anything inherent in the callings of ward and stake clerk and ward and stake executive secretary that means they can only be undertaken by Priesthood holders? I’m aware that the Handbook specifies that these callings must be fulfilled by Priesthood holders, but that seems to be more to do with the handbook than the requirements and nature of the callings.

Expand  

Not really. I have known women to hold these positions where there is a paucity of priesthood holders (accommodation for local circumstances). It would the exception rather than the norm mostly for societal reasons and how temptation of various kinds works its way into and through our social relationships and structures.

[Sunday21]

  On 5/31/2018 at 1:05 PM, CV75 said:

Not really. I have known women to hold these positions where there is a paucity of priesthood holders (accommodation for local circumstances). It would the exception rather than the norm mostly for societal reasons and how temptation of various kinds works its way into and through our social relationships and structures.

Expand  

My area has had females serve as clerks. I found out when I was happily telling a priesthood leader that he could never call me to the position of clerk. He turned to me, gave me the look and set me straight. I have been much better behaved since!

[John_Pack_Lambert]

I served in a ward on my mission where one member had had her husband leave her to run off with a woman who served as an assistant clerk while he was ward clerk. This makes me think that doing such is a very bad idea.

 

This is also why I think the Church should close a lot of the samll family history centers that were set up in the days of Temple Ready. While official policies say that there should always be 2 staff members present, at least one of those should be a baptized Church member, and that if only two staff are present they must either both be of the same sex or spouses/immediate family members, I have seen every one of those rules broken and always in small family history centers. I have also seen non-mmeber FHC staff take way too condescending approaches to members starting family history with only a little knowledge to feel they should be used as staff at all. Since the main purpose of family history centers is to advance temple work, we should at least have staff who understand the importance of temple work.

[Sunday21]

  On 6/1/2018 at 3:19 AM, John_Pack_Lambert said:

I served in a ward on my mission where one member had had her husband leave her to run off with a woman who served as an assistant clerk while he was ward clerk. This makes me think that doing such is a very bad idea.

 

This is also why I think the Church should close a lot of the samll family history centers that were set up in the days of Temple Ready. While official policies say that there should always be 2 staff members present, at least one of those should be a baptized Church member, and that if only two staff are present they must either both be of the same sex or spouses/immediate family members, I have seen every one of those rules broken and always in small family history centers. I have also seen non-mmeber FHC staff take way too condescending approaches to members starting family history with only a little knowledge to feel they should be used as staff at all. Since the main purpose of family history centers is to advance temple work, we should at least have staff who understand the importance of temple work.

Expand  

We gave a key to a local nonmember. 

[Vort]

I often worked with a clerk, just the two of us alone, when processing tithing after the Sunday meetings. Surely we would not have been allowed to do that had the clerk been a sister, which would have meant either that two bishopric members always do the tithing or else that there would always be three people present. A relatively small thing, but inconvenient. I am surprised but not shocked to hear of sisters acting as clerks, but I assume it's a very rare thing and probably done when there is no good alternative. The Church is very conservative, and rightly so, in male-female Church interactions.

[zil]

  On 6/1/2018 at 2:53 AM, Sunday21 said:

My area has had females serve as clerks. I found out when I was happily telling a priesthood leader that he could never call me to the position of clerk. He turned to me, gave me the look and set me straight. I have been much better behaved since!

Expand  

I see a logic flaw here.  Behave better, and your chances of being called as a clerk increase.

[CV75]

  On 6/1/2018 at 2:53 AM, Sunday21 said:

My area has had females serve as clerks. I found out when I was happily telling a priesthood leader that he could never call me to the position of clerk. He turned to me, gave me the look and set me straight. I have been much better behaved since!

Expand  

And I'm sure you did / do a bang-up job! :)

 

[Sunday21]

  On 6/1/2018 at 1:19 PM, CV75 said:

And I'm sure you did / do a bang-up job!

 

Expand  

I did not actually receive this calling but..maybe in retirement!