High Council Order

Discussions around using and interfacing with the Church MLS program.
BrianEdwards
Senior Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:42 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: High Council Order

#11

Post by BrianEdwards »

I've found that some Church leaders still retain practices that either are out-of-date, or were never officially in place but were rather locally practiced. For example, I just recently had a new RS President insist that her 1st Counselor had specific duties as opposed to the 2nd Counselor, even though the Handbook says nothing of that sort. The previous RS President had requested that her counselors be sustained as "RS Counselors", as opposed to "RS 1st Counselor" and "RS 2nd Counselor", since in her mind they were completely interchangeable.

I think that whenever there is change, it takes a period of time for some members/leaders to adjust. As long as there's no "damage" being done, at times it might be best to simply advise of what current Church policy is, and allow for some "determined" leaders to continue with things they feel are right.

It's a tricky thing, for sure.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11460
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

Re: High Council Order

#12

Post by lajackson »

ttmetusela wrote:My stake still asks HC to sit in order of seniority. Is that considered appropriate/necessary?
johnshaw wrote:When I pointed this out to my SP he said that he didn't take directions from MLS.
Nor should he. But I do not remember that the instruction came from MLS. I seem to recall that there was a Notice or First Presidency letter.

High councilors do not have seniority. Sitting by length of service was a long-standing tradition until 2010 when it was clarified that there was no seniority in the council. After that, stake presidents were free to ask the high council to sit in any order they determined. Some continued to sit traditionally by length of service, the way they were sustained. Some sat alphabetically.

Our stake president said, Sit anywhere you want, and it does not need to be the same place every time. I know your names.

The high council does not meet or function without a member of the stake presidency present to preside.

The biggest challenge we had with the List of Officers Sustained is that when the change was made in MLS, the high councilors were listed alphabetically by first name. Tilt. We had to change it for every ward and branch conference before they got the software fixed to sort by last name.

To answer the original question, Is it appropriate? I do not believe it really matters. Is it necessary? No.
rmdunford
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:20 pm

Re: High Council Order

#13

Post by rmdunford »

BrianEdwards wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:41 pm I've found that some Church leaders still retain practices that either are out-of-date, or were never officially in place but were rather locally practiced. For example, I just recently had a new RS President insist that her 1st Counselor had specific duties as opposed to the 2nd Counselor, even though the Handbook says nothing of that sort. The previous RS President had requested that her counselors be sustained as "RS Counselors", as opposed to "RS 1st Counselor" and "RS 2nd Counselor", since in her mind they were completely interchangeable.

I think that whenever there is change, it takes a period of time for some members/leaders to adjust. As long as there's no "damage" being done, at times it might be best to simply advise of what current Church policy is, and allow for some "determined" leaders to continue with things they feel are right.

It's a tricky thing, for sure.
Actually your RS President is likely correct. Stakes are asking wards to assign specific responsibilities to a counselor and encourage the same alignment throughout the unit (i.e. All 1st Counselors are over Temple and Family History and all 2nd Counselors are over Missionary Work).... That goes for Bishoprics, EQ, YW, RS, class and Aaronic Priesthood Quorums, etc.
davesudweeks
Senior Member
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 9:16 pm
Location: Washington, USA

Re: High Council Order

#14

Post by davesudweeks »

rmdunford wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:33 amActually your RS President is likely correct. Stakes are asking wards to assign specific responsibilities to a counselor and encourage the same alignment throughout the unit (i.e. All 1st Counselors are over Temple and Family History and all 2nd Counselors are over Missionary Work).... That goes for Bishoprics, EQ, YW, RS, class and Aaronic Priesthood Quorums, etc.
A big point from our SP is to avoid confusing tradition with doctrine. Having all counselors assigned the same way consistently across the stake may be a tradition that makes it easier for the stake leaders, but kind of wipes out the organization president's ability to receive inspiration on how to assign their counselors. If the general handbook doesn't specify it must be this way, it is not required (unless the local Stake President requires it which is his right as the presiding High Priest in the stake). But that's just my 2-cents.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34422
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: High Council Order

#15

Post by russellhltn »

rmdunford wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:33 am Stakes are asking wards to assign specific responsibilities to a counselor and encourage the same alignment throughout the unit (i.e. All 1st Counselors are over Temple and Family History and all 2nd Counselors are over Missionary Work).... That goes for Bishoprics, EQ, YW, RS, class and Aaronic Priesthood Quorums, etc.
Probably a manageability issue. LCR doesn't allow recording of assignments. So when the stake wants to send something out to all the leaders over one area, they can do so without spamming all the other leaders. If they try to track it in a list, it will be constantly changing and going out of date.

Consistent assignments is a simple way of dealing with the problem. For example, if they need to send something to all who are over Missionary Work, just send to all the first counselors. At least that list should always be up to date in LCR.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11460
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

Re: High Council Order

#16

Post by lajackson »

If I am an elders quorum president and the stake is sending an assignment to one of my counselors, I want to know about it. A presidency works together, and the other counselor also needs to know.

So, in my opinion, it does not matter which counselor has which assignment, because the email should go to the presidency anyway.
andykmiller
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:31 am

Re: High Council Order

#17

Post by andykmiller »

It would be nice if there was a place to find this current policy. Our stake still goes by order of seniority, but I can't find anywhere that states what the current policy is.
BrianEdwards
Senior Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:42 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: High Council Order

#18

Post by BrianEdwards »

With the simplification of the Handbook, some things which previously were specifically delineated have been removed. Many of those things were what I'd call Church (or Utah!) "traditions" that crept into official docs, while other entries were likely removed to allow for local leader inspiration and adaptability. Most of the time there's not a list of items removed from the Handbook, much less an explanation of context about the removal. Earlier in this thread there was a reference to some Release Notes in MLS regarding the High Council seniority, but that link seems to now be empty (and Release Notes aren't necessarily official, either).

My current perspective is that since the Handbook doesn't state it should or should not be done, a Stake President has some discretion. So something simple like sitting High Councilors in order of seniority isn't mandated, but also isn't prohibited. And if the Stake President feels inspired that his work is best done with the High Councilors by ordering assignments, etc, by seniority, there's nothing currently prohibiting him from doing that. However, he should understand that this decision would not be based on current Church policy, but rather something he is personally inspired for his particular situation. As previously stated, this is tricky since most of us when called into a new leadership position will continue previous structures, often assuming they are based on policy, and not understanding we have flexibility to look for inspiration to change certain ways of doing things. Tradition is wonderful thing!
garystroble
Senior Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:34 pm
Location: near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Re: High Council Order

#19

Post by garystroble »

Currently the church software sorts High Councilors alphabetically by last name. No other options exist electronically.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11460
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

Re: High Council Order

#20

Post by lajackson »

andykmiller wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:35 am It would be nice if there was a place to find this current policy.
The only place in writing of which I am aware is from the MLS version 3.2 release notes from 12 years ago, which said, "Members of the high council should not be listed by seniority of service. Only Apostles serve by seniority." This is supported by the fact that LCR (and previously MLS) thereafter listed high councilors alphabetically.

None of them hold keys, nor do they preside when they visit sacrament meetings on assignment from the stake presidency. And not a one of them has enough authority to lead the high council on their own. A member of the stake presidency must be present and preside.

By tradition, many stake presidents still seat their high councilors that way. In my opinion there is no reason to do so. I never knew a stake president to ask them to sit alphabetically. In our stake they were told to sit wherever they wished, and that it did not matter if they changed places from time to time, since we knew all of their names.
Locked

Return to “MLS Support, Help, and Feedback”