Page 1 of 2

Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Mon May 02, 2016 3:41 am
by Biggles
Yesterday, in my ward, we called an Aaronic priesthood holder as an Assistant Ward Clerk - Membership. However LCR doesn't show the calling (for this individual), only allows a Custom Calling, which I've entered on a temporary basis. Handbook 1 - Section 13.4.3 Assistant Ward Clerks implies that this calling is permitted.

Is this an LCR permissions oversight, or something else?

The Custom Calling, of course, severely restricts what he will be able to do.

I have already submitted Feedback on this issue

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 12:11 am
by Biggles
Nobody else come across this problem?

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 2:46 am
by jokamura
"...worthy to have a temple recommend." Does this imply Melchizedek priesthood or...?

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 5:23 am
by eblood66
Somebody else did encounter this problem a few months ago but nobody had any useful responses then and there was no developer input so I'm afraid that thread doesn't provide any more insight on whether it should be possible or not.

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 9:45 am
by scgallafent
The requirement has been changed to require that the person filling this position must be an elder or high priest. Handbook 1 has not been updated, but the request to make that change has been submitted.

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 10:36 am
by Biggles
scgallafent wrote:The requirement has been changed to require that the person filling this position must be an elder or high priest. Handbook 1 has not been updated, but the request to make that change has been submitted.
Thank you for the heads up. The brother who has been called, will be advancing to elder in the next couple of months.

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 11:24 am
by russellhltn
jokamura wrote:Does this imply Melchizedek priesthood or...?
You missed the word "should". Melchizedek requirement is specifically spelled out in the following sentence but even then it's not a "must".

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 11:30 am
by drepouille
In my humble opinion, all clerks and assistant clerks should hold the MP, especially now that they are granted many privileges in both MLS and LCR. I believe the same should be true for executive secretaries, since they also receive significant privileges in LCR. Before LCR, the Exec Sec often didn't have many privileges in MLS, and I saw a few of them with the Aaronic Priesthood.

One could argue that everyone in "the bishopric" including all clerks, assistant clerks, and executive secretaries should hold the MP and be endowed, with current temple recommends. If they have sweeping access to personal data in the membership and financial records, they occupy a position of trust.

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 2:34 pm
by lajackson
russellhltn wrote:You missed the word "should". Melchizedek requirement is specifically spelled out in the following sentence but even then it's not a "must".
In the language of the Handbook, the word "should" is usually the most powerful word used when specifying requirements. When the First Presidency specifies that something "should" be done, they really, really hope that you will do it that way, and they will do everything in their power to encourage you to do it that way.

They will not, however, take away a priesthood leader's agency. So they use the word "should", not "must".

Re: Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 3:04 pm
by russellhltn
lajackson wrote:They will not, however, take away a priesthood leader's agency. So they use the word "should", not "must".
They do that in other ways. For example, could an assistant clerk be female? The Handbooks specifies that they are "brethren".

No "must", but no "should" either.