Who is supposed to take the lead of meetings?

The day after general conference, I began looking over the scriptures that speak of priesthood offices and duties and new thoughts came to mind, some of which I am publishing here.

D&C 20:38-45 describes the calling and duties of an elder:

The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize; and to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons; and to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ—and to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures; and to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church; and to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost; and to take the lead of all meetings.

The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.

So, “an elder” is “to take the lead of all meetings.”

Which elder takes the lead?

The presiding elder.

And which elder is the presiding elder?

The elders’ quorum president is the presiding elder.

Deacons

A congregation has a quorum of elders and deacons, with presidencies for both, all present in a meeting.

Who takes the lead?

The elders’ quorum president, per D&C 20:44.

And to take the lead of all meetings.  (D&C 20:44)

Teachers

A congregation has a quorum of elders, deacons and teachers, with presidencies for each, all present in a meeting.

Who takes the lead?

The elders’ quorum president, per D&C 20:44.

If all the elders go missing, who then takes the lead?

The teachers’ quorum president, per D&C 20:56.

And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—  (D&C 20:56)

Priests

A congregation has a quorum of elders, deacons, teachers and priests, with presidencies for each, all present in a meeting.

Who takes the lead?

The elders’ quorum president, per D&C 20:44.

If all the elders go missing, who then takes the lead?

The priests’ quorum president, per D&C 20:49.

And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;  (D&C 20:49)

If all the elders and priests go missing, who then takes the lead?

The teachers’ quorum president, per D&C 20:56.

Priests’ quorum president!? What’s that?

That’s a presidency formed of three priests, one priest presiding and two priests as his counselors, just as the elders’, teachers’ and deacons’ quorums are all set up:

Verily, I say unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts, there must needs be presiding elders to preside over those who are of the office of an elder; and also priests to preside over those who are of the office of a priest; and also teachers to preside over those who are of the office of a teacher, in like manner, and also the deacons—wherefore, from deacon to teacher, and from teacher to priest, and from priest to elder, severally as they are appointed, according to the covenants and commandments of the church.  (D&C 107:60-63)

Continuing on…

The bishopric

A congregation has a quorum of elders, deacons, teachers and priests, with presidencies for each, all present in a meeting. Additionally, the bishopric also attends.

Who takes the lead?

The elders’ quorum president, per D&C 20:44.

If all the elders go missing, who then takes the lead?

The priests’ quorum president, per D&C 20:49.

If all the elders and priests go missing, who then takes the lead?

The teachers’ quorum president, per D&C 20:56.

Wait! Isn’t the bishop supposed to take the lead?

Nope. All bishops in the church are high priests who have been called, ordained and set apart as bishops. They function in the capacity of a bishop, not as a high priest. Their jurisdiction, while holding this calling, is that of a bishop. A bishop’s jurisdiction is over the Priesthood of Aaron in a ward, which includes presiding over the priests:

Also the duty of the president over the Priesthood of Aaron is to preside over forty-eight priests, and sit in council with them, to teach them the duties of their office, as is given in the covenants—this president is to be a bishop; for this is one of the duties of this priesthood. (D&C 107:87-88)

The office of a bishop pertains to both the higher or Melchizedek priesthood, being an appendage of it, and also to the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, presiding over it:

And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.

And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons. (D&C 84:29-30)

If we were to show this vertically, we could more clearly see that the office an elder always takes precedence over the office a bishop.

Lesser Priesthood

Teacher (1^st listed appendage)

Deacon (2^nd listed appendage)

High Priesthood

Elder (1^st listed appendage)

Bishop (2^nd listed appendage)

So, it does not matter whether a bishop is a high priest or a literal descendant of Aaron, once he has been set apart as a bishop, he is locked into it for the duration of the calling, meaning he cannot take the lead of any meeting in which an elder is present, for taking the lead of all meetings pertains to the office of an elder.

Now, in the case of a meeting in which members, priests and the bishopric are all present, but no elders are present, the president of the priests’ quorum*** takes the lead of the meeting, not the bishop.  This is because the scripture specifically gives this as the duty of a priest.  A bishop is given no such duty anywhere in the scriptures.

***

Keep in mind that the priests’ quorum presidency, which is made up of three priests, and the bishopric, which is made up of a high priest and two (elders or high priests) counselors, might be interpreted as two separate presidencies.  For example:

And again, I say unto you, I give unto you Vinson Knight, Samuel H. Smith, and Shadrach Roundy, if he will receive it, to preside over the bishopric; a knowledge of said bishopric is given unto you in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

And again, I say unto you, Samuel Rolfe and his counselors for priests, and the president of the teachers and his counselors, and also the president of the deacons and his counselors, and also the president of the stake and his counselors.  (D&C 124:141-142)

Historically, these scriptures have been interpreted as meaning that the priests’ quorum is different than the teachers’ and deacons’ quorums, in that those quorums have quorum members (teachers and deacons) composing their presidencies, while the priests’ quorum has the bishopric as its presidency.  So, in the above, Vinson and counselors would have become a presiding bishopric, while Rolfe and counselors would have become a normal bishopric.  That is, indeed, one way of reading these verses.

But the wording also permits presidencies of deacons, teachers and priests, and also a separate bishopric which presides over the entire Aaronic Priesthood and has some special connection, in particular, to the quorum of priests.

In fact, taking this alternate view, we can also see that president of a stake and the president over the high priests’ quorum, which historically have been combined together into one president, can also be interpreted as two separate presidencies.  For example:

And again, I give unto you Don C. Smith to be a president over a quorum of high priests; which ordinance is instituted for the purpose of qualifying those who shall be appointed standing presidents or servants over different stakes scattered abroad; and they may travel also if they choose, but rather be ordained for standing presidents; this is the office of their calling, saith the Lord your God.

I give unto him Amasa Lyman and Noah Packard for counselors, that they may preside over the quorum of high priests of my church, saith the Lord.  (D&C 124:133-136)

So, the presidencies of the quorum of high priests are instituted for the purpose of qualifying men for the presidencies of the stakes.  The one is for the other, but they are not the same.  And so, after we read the Lord appointing who will be the presidency of the quorum of the high priests, we read that they were to also appoint a president of the stake and counselors:

And again, I say unto you, Samuel Rolfe and his counselors for priests, and the president of the teachers and his counselors, and also the president of the deacons and his counselors, and also the president of the stake and his counselors.  (D&C 124:141-142)

In like manner, the presidency of the quorum of priests, which presidency is made up of three priests of the quorum, may have been instituted for the purpose of qualifying men for the bishopric, hence the link between the bishopric and the priests.

In other words, the Aaronic priesthood priests’ quorum was to have two presidents: one an ordained bishop and the other an ordained priest.  This was to correspond to how the Melchizedek priesthood was originally set up: with two presidents; a first elder, apostle or president (Joseph Smith) and a second elder, apostle or president (Oliver Cowdery and later Hyrum Smith.)  The locally organized Melchizedek priesthood would also have two presidents: a president of the stake and a high priest president over the high priests’ quorum.

I suppose I could take this further, but I think what I have written will suffice.

High priests

A congregation has a bishopric as well as quorums of elders, deacons, teachers and priests, with presidencies for each, all present in a meeting. Additionally, there are high priests present.

Who takes the lead?

The elders’ quorum president, per D&C 20:44.

Why doesn’t the high priest take the lead?

High priests may only officiate as high priests when they are called to do so by the stake presidency.

High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right 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. (D&C 107:10)

They may officiate in the office of an elder, priest, teacher, deacon and member, without permission from the stake presidency, but in any of these capacities, they still are subject to the leadership of the elders’ quorum president, who is to take the lead of all meetings.

What if the high priest officiates in his own standing?

Okay, in that case the high priest is given an assignment by the stake president and is sent out, (essentially as a local apostle). A high priest’s main duty is to teach:

And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. (Alma 13:1)

therefore, the high priest will be sent to his own ward or to some other ward of the stake, to deliver some message or teaching. We get these all the time in the form of high counselors delivering their talks on assignment from the stake presidency. In such a case, the high priest still doesn’t take the lead of the meeting.

The reason is because they are acting in their capacity as, or exercising their right to officiate as, high priests, not as elders. Elders have the right to take the lead of all meetings, therefore, a high priest on assignment, sent by the stake presidency, must still defer meeting conducting and leadership to the elders’ quorum president. Although the high priest is there on his own authority, once an elders’ quorum is established with an elders’ quorum presidency, the elders’ quorum president is the man in charge of all the meetings. So, although he may get up and speak to the congregation, he must do so with the permission or consent of the elders’ quorum president. If he tries to take the lead of any meeting, while a presiding elder is there, he will be trampling upon the elder’s rights and the priesthood order set up by God in the scriptures.

Now, if there are no presiding elders present in the congregation, then the high priest who is officiating in his standing, defers to the priests’ quorum president.  If there are no priests, then he defers to the teachers’ quorum president.  This is because these quorums have been given the jurisdiction of leading meetings in the absence of elders or priests.  High priests have no such right of leading meetings.

Also, if there is a high priest in the congregation, but he is not officiating in his own standing, not currently being under assignment, and if the congregation is missing all its elders, then the high priest can officiate in the office of an elder (without anyone’s permission) and he has the right to take the lead of that meeting, even with priests and teachers present, because they cannot take the lead when an elder is present.

However, the moment an elders’ quorum member enters the meeting, that man is the elder who takes the lead of the meeting. This is because his membership in the established quorum of elders takes precedence over any high priest officiating in the office of an elder, for although the high priest can be considered an elder while he’s officiating as such, he does not pertain to the elders’ quorum established in that ward, from which presiding elders are to be chosen. So the quorum member elder becomes the de facto presiding elder (and thus the leader of the meeting) the moment he walks into the room.

What about apostles and seventies?

Apostles and seventies are all elders that travel. As such, they have all the duties of the normal elders, but because they do not pertain to the elders’ quorums of the wards they attend, they must submit to the leadership of the established elders’ quorum president, so they cannot take the lead of any meeting that is attended by a quorum member elder.

What about the stake presidency? Surely they can take the lead!

Not on a ward level. The name of the game is jurisdiction. The elders’ quorum president has complete jurisdiction over taking the lead of all meetings of his ward. Only if there is a stake meeting, of several wards and branches, only then does the stake presidency take the lead of the meetings. So, the reunion of a stake brings everyone under his jurisdiction, while the reunion of a ward brings everyone under the jurisdiction of an elders’ quorum president. When the stake president enters a ward to speak, he does so as a visiting high priest (an apostle), and not as a president of anything in the ward, and so everything that pertains to a high priest officiating in his own standing pertains to him, including having to submit to the leadership of the elders’ quorum president.

What about the president of the church?!

It doesn’t matter what title a person holds. There are only a limited number of priesthood offices and a president of the church is a high priest, so everything that applies to a high priest applies to him. If the president of the church comes to a ward, he must submit to the leadership of the elders’ quorum presidency:

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— (D&C 121:41-42)

The principle is this: When you enter the jurisdiction of someone else’s priesthood quorum, you essentially enter without priesthood. You may influence them, or attempt to influence them, but cannot do so by virtue of your priesthood office, nor can you remove the rights that pertain to their office, calling and quorum.

I will close with a final scripture:

But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings… (D&C 46:2)

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

“It has always been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and always shall be, to conduct all meetings.”

Note: This post is meant for what4anarchy, but I thought to share it with others who may have interest.

Background information

Recently what4anarchy and I were talking and I happened to mention to him that one day, as I was researching Joseph Smith’s visit to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1839, in conjunction with research on possible daguerreotypists present in that city at that time, I Ixquicked a search term and came across the following document written by Stephen J. Fleming:

Discord in the City of Brotherly Love: The Story of Early Mormonism in Philadelphia

(Btw, the above PDF document is taken from this web site.)

what4anarchy asked me to send the document to him but I opted instead to just post it on this blog.

Who presides/conducts? The elders of the church or the bishopric?

The title of this post is taken from D&C 46: 2. I’ve always been fascinated by the phrase “elders of my church” or “elders of the church.” Currently, it is the members of the bishopric that conduct all meetings they are present at (unless a higher authority is attending.) I suppose “the elders of the church” can refer to them, but not every scriptural reference seems to imply the bishopric. For example, from the law of the church (D&C 42), it is written:

And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me. (D&C 42: 44)

For most people, this is interpreted as any member of the elder’s quorum. No one believes that this only refers to the bishopric, yet in the same revelation, we read the following:

And if any man or woman shall commit adultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church, and not of the enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better. (D&C 42: 80)

Here, probably most would think that the phrase “elders of the church” applies only to the bishopric or the stake presidency/high council, not to just two members of the elder’s quorum. Yet, two verses later, the Lord makes it plain that the “two elders of the church” before which the trial takes place does not include the bishop:

And if it can be, it is necessary that the bishop be present also. (D&C 42: 82)

Enter Fleming’s Article

Now, the document I linked to above, about the Philadelphia church, is interesting for several reasons:

The law of common consent had more power back then

According to the article, Benjamin Winchester, a LDS missionary, started proselyting in Philadelphia in the summer of 1839, after preaching in New Jersey. He finally was able to baptize several people and when Joseph Smith, Jr. visited in the winter of 1839-40, he established a branch of the church there, with Brother Winchester as the presiding elder. “Presiding elders,” states Fleming, “are what are called branch presidents today, and in the early days of the church, they were usually chosen by the branch.” Emphasis mine. (See scenario #5 in the article, Power of the Law of Common Consent, to understand why I find this so remarkable.)

Brother Winchester, apparently, was quite the proponent of Mormonism. He wrote to church headquarters for help with the missionary work prior to the arrival of Joseph Smith, debated publicly with a Presbyterian preacher, baptized, edited and wrote most of the Gospel Reflector, a Mormon periodical started to present a different picture of Mormonism than what was being published in the newspapers of the area. It is understandable that when the Philadelphia Branch was organized by Joseph Smith in December of 1839, Brother Winchester became the presiding elder.

Six men leading: a bishopric and a branch presidency

When the Philadelphia branch had financial trouble, they decided to call a financial committee, but Hyrum Smith, who was visiting, directed them to call a bishopric, instead. He taught them to call a branch presidency for spiritual affairs and a bishopric for temporal affairs, which they did, naming Bro. Winchester as presiding elder, with Bros. Whipple and Wharton as his two counselors and Bro. Syfritt as bishop with Bros. Price and Nicholson as his two counselors.

Can you imagine the elder’s quorum presidency of a ward or branch being the actual leaders of the congregation, with the bishopric being subordinate to the presiding elders and being responsible chiefly for the Aaronic priesthood and finances, as it was designed to function? No? Well, apparently the bishopric back then couldn’t either, because once a bishop and a presiding elder found themselves in the same branch, a power struggle ensued!

The Aaronic priesthood did home teaching, and not once a month

Fleming then states:

The branch also appointed the priests, teachers and deacons of the branch to “visit each member of the Church to inquire as to their faith and standing.” At a conference in December of 1840, the Aaronic Priesthood reported that “all the Saints (with but few exceptions) are diligently striving to keep the commandments of God, and their faith in the work of the Lord in the Last Days, is unshaken.”

And then there was all the discord…

Problems soon arose, though, between Bro. Winchester and a traveling elder named Almon Babbitt, which was resolved by the two with forgiveness and reconciliation. However, a junior apostle, John E. Page, who visited the branch 1841 for an extended period of time, began to make trouble for Bro. Winchester and exert influence over the branch, especially when Winchester was gone on a mission to Salem, Massachusetts during the summer. In September of that same year, Elder Babbitt wrote to church headquarters, essentially suggesting that Winchester ought to be released, as he wasn’t doing a good enough job and potential converts had stated they wouldn’t be baptized while Winchester presided.

That October, Bro. Winchester wrote a letter to church headquarters, refuting what Babbitt had written and also traveled to Nauvoo to set the record straight. Joseph Smith attended the meeting and felt Bro. Winchester had a contentious spirit and reproved him. Then, in January of 1842, the Twelve “suspended” Bro. Winchester until he made “satisfaction” for disobeying the First Presidency. Elder Page wrote another letter to church HQ, saying that Bro. Winchester was his enemy. That winter, Bro. Winchester traveled back to Philadelphia.

Now, here is where it gets even more interesting…

Apparently, the branch became divided, with the lesser portion siding with Elder Page (the apostle) and the majority siding with Bro. Winchester (the presiding elder.) Those that were with Winchester leased another building in which to attend church. The northern branch (the lesser part of the people) chose William Wharton (former counselor of the branch presidency) to be their new presiding elder, while the southern branch (the majority) kept Bro. Winchester as presiding elder.

According to Fleming, though, the real controversy was between the bishopric and the presiding elder (Winchester.) Bishop Jacob Syfritt, his first counselor James Nicholson, and his mother Eliza Nicholson all had a bone to pick with Winchester. A special conference was called in April of 1842 to mend the strife between the northern and southern branches and to investigate the causes of it. Winchester brought charges against both Syfritt and Nicholson and the conference determined that they were true. Both men were rendered “satisfaction.” Then the conference investigated Bro. Winchester. He defended himself, putting the blame of the problems squarely on the shoulders of both Almon Babbitt and Elder John E. Page. The conference ended up exonerating Bro. Winchester of any wrongdoing.

The conference also placed the entire branch in the southern location and firmly into the hands of Bro. Winchester. It also wrote a letter to Hyrum Smith, explaining the proceedings so that he would understand what the voice of the people had decided, and printed the minutes of the meeting. Apparently, the pesky bishopric was also dissolved at this time.

The northern branch struck back by writing to Joseph Smith, with petition signatures, requesting that they separate from the southern branch and become a genuine separate branch of the church, with Bro. Wharton as the presiding elder, meeting in the original location. The Twelve apostles granted their request in May of 1842 and also disapproved of the southern conference. They also “silenced” Winchester from preaching until he made satisfaction for disobeying the First Presidency while at Nauvoo.

No more spoilers

Now, I won’t spoil the rest of the story, only to say that it is very engaging. It is almost on the same level as daytime soap operas, except that the people mentioned in the article were real and as many were holders of the priesthood of God, their actions might be considered even more shocking. I, personally, found it a fascinating read.

But more than that, I think it may be a good read for our times. The time period covered by Fleming, 1839 to after the martyrdom of the Prophet and Hyrum, was one of a lot of change, and not everyone responded to those changes in the same way. Not everyone understood or knew who was supposed to be in charge, meaning who was supposed to be the leaders. Not all the doctrine or new revelations given were received with gladness. Although we modern LDS are not currently faced with the rapid changes these earlier saints were exposed to, that is not to say that things will remain the same as always. It may be beneficial to review the responses of these early saints and leaders and put ourselves in their places, to prepare ourselves, at least mentally, for the things which are prophesied to come to pass in our day and age, prior to the Lord’s second coming.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist