If the Bishop and one counselor are not on the stand

[martybess]

Does it state anyway who is to sit with the Bishopric member on the stand if the other members are not there during sacrament meeting? I know any or the Stake Presidency can but what's the logical choice if they can not attend? The high counselor assigned to the ward? Does it even need to be a high priest? I know in singles ward or a branch it's different but in a typical Utah ward lets say.

[pam]

I've been in wards where just the counselor sat there.

[martybess]

Ahhhh that is true I have seen that. So that means it's up to the Bishop and Stake president really. There doesn't need to be anyone else.

What if all three are gone?

[pam]

They cancel church.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I was in that position once -- as 2nd Counselor in the Bishopric -- when the Bishop and 1st Counselor were away. The ward was crawling with temple presidents, former stake presidents, and high counsellors, as well as many ex-Bishopric.

I was told about 3 times afterwards I should've had the High Priest Group leader up there with me so there was more than one person listening for correct wording of the Sacrament prayer. I think they even suggested the EQ president be up there as well.

Perhaps MOE should pull out his handbook and tell him if I was getting good information at the time from these men of experience who chastised me after the meeting.

[Snow]

Does it state anyway who is to sit with the Bishopric member on the stand if the other members are not there during sacrament meeting?

I think it's me. Email me and I send you my pager number.

[Justice]

I've always understood that if the Bishopric is not present it would probably be arranged ahead of time that the Elder's Quorum President would preside at the meeting.

President of the Aaronic Priesthood is the Bishop.

President of the Elders is the Elder's Quorum President (obvious one).

President of the Melchezidek Priesthood is the Stake President.

Bishop and EQ President both hold keys, the High Priest Group Leader does not (neither does the High Council Member).

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the last deacon in the Ward would preside before a High Council member would. He is not in a presiding capacity.

[Wingnut]

They cancel church.

In some wards perhaps, but not always.

I was in that position once -- as 2nd Counselor in the Bishopric -- when the Bishop and 1st Counselor were away. The ward was crawling with temple presidents, former stake presidents, and high counsellors, as well as many ex-Bishopric.

I was told about 3 times afterwards I should've had the High Priest Group leader up there with me so there was more than one person listening for correct wording of the Sacrament prayer. I think they even suggested the EQ president be up there as well.

Perhaps MOE should pull out his handbook and tell him if I was getting good information at the time from these men of experience who chastised me after the meeting.

I've often seen the high priest group leader sit up on the stand with a lone counselor, and have thought that maybe it's just really lonely up there, secluded from everyone else, and it's nice to have a companion.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Wingnut

[Avrham]

I believe that EQ president has the authority keys after the Bishop,I was once informed that due to unforseen circumstances that their was no leadership bishopric or anyone else including EQ Pres being the counselor for EQ I'd asked the other counselor if he would join me he just said he was not "qaulified"also went and asked the HP Leader he just laughed and said "not my Job"well 5minutes to go praying that someone (bishopric) would turn up went for a walk outside to get my annoyance out of me

I read the program said a quick prayer something about opening my eyes then I realised(light bulb moment)Priesthood+temples+missionaries I ran back inside to the other counselor and nervously asked if he had a current temple recommend "yeah of course" I just mumbled something like lets use it so he ran into the toilet joined me up in the stand also managed to asked the missionaries to join as well

I'd thought I was in trouble afterwoods when the Bishop and Stake Pres wanted to chat with me they just said "A Big thank you" and all I could say was "I just added 10yrs to myself"

that was 4yrs ago still remember like it was yesterday glad I am not in the Bishopric

[MarginOfError]

The handbooks aren't clear on this matter, except to say that a counselor in the bishopric may preside in the bishop's absence and that the bishop presides unless a member of the stake presidency, and area authority, or a general authority is present.

It's also unclear in what role the bishop is acting when he presides over Sacrament meeting. If he is acting as the presiding high priest in the ward, then after his counselors, the logical choice would be the high priests group leader. If he's acting as the highest ranking leader with keys, then it would fall to the elders' quorum presidency (and then to the teachers' quorum and deacons' quorum presidencies after that). But to my knowledge, the Handbooks do not specify who should preside if the entire bishopric is absent.

Generally, if it can be arranged, I advise that if the entire bishopric cannot be present, the stake presidency be contacted in advance.

The whole argument is a little absurd anyway. The bishop and the stake presidency have the authority to assign someone to preside, whether that person holds priesthood keys or not.

As for who should sit with a lone counselor, it doesn't matter. The purpose of having someone there is a) a second witness that the Sacrament prayer is read correctly and b) to keep the guy company. But it is not necessary. My father was a bishop for eight years, and for one of those years, he had no counselors at all. He sat on the stand alone every week for that year and managed the meetings himself.

Getting into this kind of a debate seems to be looking beyond the mark a little.

Edited May 19, 2010 by MarginOfError

[martybess]

I've always understood that if the Bishopric is not present it would probably be arranged ahead of time that the Elder's Quorum President would preside at the meeting.

President of the Aaronic Priesthood is the Bishop.

President of the Elders is the Elder's Quorum President (obvious one).

President of the Melchezidek Priesthood is the Stake President.

Bishop and EQ President both hold keys, the High Priest Group Leader does not (neither does the High Council Member).

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the last deacon in the Ward would preside before a High Council member would. He is not in a presiding capacity.

Justice,

I'm wondering if it has anything to do with keys? If so why do the bishops counselors preside when the bishops gone and not the EQ pres? The counselors do not hold keys. They act under the direction of the bishop and his keys but so does a HPGL under the direction of the stake pres keys. Most that I have seen have the HPGL sit with the counselor but I was told by a bishop this week this is wrong. It should be the EQ pres. Then another bishop told me it should be the HPGL. I don't think there's really anything anywhere on this because as Pam said as long as one counselors there your good to go and if there's not any of the bishopric no meeting. Unless the stake pres is there or the ward joins another wards sacrament meeting. I have seen that too.

Edited May 19, 2010 by martybess

[Suzie]

Being chastise for that? Wow.

This is one of those things to me where we focus on things we shouldn't when there are bigger and more important issues to deal with in each one of our wards.

[martybess]

Being chastise for that? Wow.

This is one of those things to me where we focus on things we shouldn't when there are bigger and more important issues to deal with in each one of our wards.

Yes I agree totally Suzie....unless your the one in that position. LOL Leaders should try and know the handbook. This question maybe a bit out of "gospel discussion" and more under "knowing policy if your a leader" LOL

[MarginOfError]

Justice,

I'm wondering if it has anything to do with keys? If so why do the bishops counselors preside when the bishops gone and not the EQ pres? The counselors do not hold keys. They act under the direction of the bishop and his keys but so does a HPGL under the direction of the stake pres keys. Most that I have seen have the HPGL sit with the counselor but I was told by a bishop this week this is wrong. It should be the EQ pres. Then another bishop told me it should be the HPGL. I don't think there's really anything anywhere on this because as Pam said as long as one counselors there your good to go and if there's not any of the bishopric no meeting. Unless the stake pres is there or the ward joins another wards sacrament meeting. I have seen that too.

No, it doesn't really address this issue in the D&C. As I've said before, it probably isn't addressed because it isn't really that important.

As for the suggestion that if no one in the bishopric can be present, then there is no meeting, I say rubbish. The bishop can authorize two priests to administer the sacrament in a place where no member of the bishopric is present. He can certainly authorize priesthood holders to administer the Sacrament in the chapel.

I strongly suggest we refrain from trying to put in place policies and quasi-doctrines that don't exist. There's a great deal of ambiguity in this matter, and that's fine. The general principle we can take away from this is that there should be a member of the bishopric present when possible. The fact that there is ambiguity in the matter means that when the ideal solution is not possible, the priesthood leaders have flexibility to create a solution that works with the resources they have.

Sometimes ambiguity is a good thing.

[Gwen]

in some areas it is a valid concern. we have a branch pres with no counselors. if he is not there then the eq pres usually takes over. the only time someone sits up front with the bp is when there is someone from the stake pres visiting. if the visiting high counselor is alone he will sometimes sit up front but for the most part everyone sits in the congregation. if neither are there then it would be whichever appropriate priesthood holder that was asked to do it. we did muse on what would happen if it was unforeseen and there was no one there what would we do. i was told have the axillary meetings and dismiss. at one point we only had 3 mel ph holders in the branch so having something crazy happen and not having them all there was actually a possibility.

moe reminded me of something else that was said when we were discussing what if no one was there. lol i was told that the bp could authorize the aaronic priesthood to do the sacrament if there were any before dismissing.

also all the yrs we've been very low on "leadership" we've never had that situation arise. the lord takes care of his church and the "perfect storm" never actually happens?

Edited May 19, 2010 by Gwen

[Hemidakota]

Does it state anyway who is to sit with the Bishopric member on the stand if the other members are not there during sacrament meeting? I know any or the Stake Presidency can but what's the logical choice if they can not attend? The high counselor assigned to the ward? Does it even need to be a high priest? I know in singles ward or a branch it's different but in a typical Utah ward lets say.

The remaining Bishopric/Branch Councilor presides, along with the HP Group Leader, and the Elders Q. President can sit with him.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think the only real issue here is who is presiding. If I had more energy I'd look up the D&C where it says that an Elder should preside at all meetings (which I take means anyone with the Melch) priesthood). And it no elder is available, a priest can do it if authorized. I can't remember the source but I remember reading it in D&C years ago.

When I officiated Sacrament meeting alone a while ago, I did feel "exposed" so to speak. I don't know how many times I've seen counselors correct bishops and Bishop's correct counselors in sustainings and releases, making two people better than one to catc such issues. One Bishop wanted me on the stand with him as HPGL because he had a hearing problem and needed me to listen for the accuracy of the Sacrament prayer.

Also, I'd be leery of leaving someone inexperienced on the stand alone in case some of the less common situations at Church happen -- such as someone opposing a sustaining, or someone who violates protocols of sacrament meeting in their talk. If the person was new they might not know how to handle such a situation.

So, there are practical reasons for choosing to have more than one person on the stand when 2 members of the Bishopric are away.

Edited May 19, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Gwen]

if i had more energy i'd look up the d&c where it says that an elder should preside at all meetings (which i take means anyone with the melch) priesthood). And it no elder is available, a priest can do it if authorized. I can't remember the source but i remember reading it in d&c years ago.

d&c 107?

[Wingnut]

I think the only real issue here is who is presiding. If I had more energy I'd look up the D&C where it says that an Elder should preside at all meetings (which I take means anyone with the Melch) priesthood). And it no elder is available, a priest can do it if authorized. I can't remember the source but I remember reading it in D&C years ago.

But if the bishop is absent, then there's no president of the Priests quorum. Wouldn't it fall to the Teachers Quorum President then?

Also, I'd be leery of leaving someone inexperienced on the stand alone in case some of the less common situations at Church happen -- such as someone opposing a sustaining, or someone who violates protocols of sacrament meeting in their talk. If the person was new they might not know how to handle such a situation.

Chances are, in the absence of the bishopric, there won't be any ward business to conduct.

[martybess]

I think the only real issue here is who is presiding. If I had more energy I'd look up the D&C where it says that an Elder should preside at all meetings (which I take means anyone with the Melch) priesthood). And it no elder is available, a priest can do it if authorized. I can't remember the source but I remember reading it in D&C years ago.

I remember reading something in the D&C that in the absence of a high priest an elder is to preside. ???????

On a side note sometimes I've wondered why there's so much policy in the D&C and then I came to appreciate it and think of the D&C as "the first handbook of instructions in the latter days". Look at all the policies in the old testament......WOOOOOOOW! Isn't it great were living the higher law and not "an eye for an eye" :)

Really I'm not one of those who's anal about policies, just was curious and where else can I throw it out there other then here and get feedback so quickly, thanks all.

..

[martybess]

Chances are, in the absence of the bishopric, there won't be any ward business to conduct.

Good point. :)

[martybess]

d&c 107?

Is this it?

(D&C 107)

10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a bright to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

11 An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present.

12 The high priest and elder are to administer in spiritual things, agreeable to the covenants and commandments of the church; and they have a right to officiate in all these offices of the church when there are no higher authorities present.

..

[Guest mormonmusic]

Is this it?

(D&C 107)

10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a bright to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

11 An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present.

12 The high priest and elder are to administer in spiritual things, agreeable to the covenants and commandments of the church; and they have a right to officiate in all these offices of the church when there are no higher authorities present.

..

That's the one I was referring to. Although I think it says nothing about who presides, only who conducts.

[MarginOfError]

That's the one I was referring to. Although I think it says nothing about who presides, only who conducts.

I don't understand what you mean here.

[Hemidakota]

I think the only real issue here is who is presiding. If I had more energy I'd look up the D&C where it says that an Elder should preside at all meetings (which I take means anyone with the Melch) priesthood). And it no elder is available, a priest can do it if authorized. I can't remember the source but I remember reading it in D&C years ago.

What constititute an elder when a HP is in attendance?