Tech Forum

alextovey wrote:Hey everyone, just have a question as this was possed to me earlier today. is Brethern who is in "nursury" counted in the HPG attendace in their meetings and also if someone is on stake business in another ward do we count them as well.

if you could let me know would be great as i thiknk they are counted but not 100%

many thanks

We were recently advised in our Stake that men were not to be called as teachers in Primary. Not sure if this is Church policy or a decision of our Stake Presidency. Either way I acknowledge the policy may be different in other areas.

znauga wrote:We were recently advised in our Stake that men were not to be called as teachers in Primary. Not sure if this is Church policy or a decision of our Stake Presidency. Either way I acknowledge the policy may be different in other areas.

I would strongly recommend that your priesthood leaders read the 26 May 2006 letter from the First Presidency on this topic, which to my reading says the exact opposite of your stake's policy.

NOTE: I moved your post and my reply to a new thread, since it has little to do with attendance counting.

Alan_Brown wrote:I would strongly recommend that your priesthood leaders read the 26 May 2006 letter from the First Presidency on this topic, which to my reading says the exact opposite of your stake's policy.

I was just wondering if that letter happened to be linked anywhere.

For example:
http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,7020-1,00.html
http://www.lds.org/pa/ym/SafeguardingChildrenLtr.pdf

jbh001 wrote:I was just wondering if that letter happened to be linked anywhere.

I can't find it online anywhere (although I'm sure it's in the Official Communication Library, accessible by stake presidents).

That is unfortunate, because the 26 May 2006 letter specifically refers to the 23 February 2006 letter that you linked to and said that some units went too far and stopped calling brethren to serve in the Primary, which was not a proper response to the 23 February 2006 letter.

znauga wrote:We were recently advised in our Stake that men were not to be called as teachers in Primary. Not sure if this is Church policy or a decision of our Stake Presidency. Either way I acknowledge the policy may be different in other areas.

I think the information at the safeguarding children page should cover this.

I suspect that just banning men from serving in primary is a more common response by stake and ward leaders than we might suspect. It's a really natural response to a risk management issue to just ensure that there is no chance of the risk event occuring.

Alan_Brown wrote:I can't find it online anywhere (although I'm sure it's in the Official Communication Library, accessible by stake presidents).

That is unfortunate, because the 26 May 2006 letter specifically refers to the 23 February 2006 letter that you linked to and said that some units went too far and stopped calling brethren to serve in the Primary, which was not a proper response to the 23 February 2006 letter.

James_Francisco wrote:I suspect that just banning men from serving in primary is a more common response by stake and ward leaders than we might suspect. It's a really natural response to a risk management issue to just ensure that there is no chance of the risk event occuring.

And it is more efficient. It takes 2 men to teach 1 class and 1 woman to teach the same class. They assign a person who is hesitant to teach to be in Primary class with me. It works out well when he comes, but when he does not come, I prop the door open and no one has a problem with that.

I remember when I first heard this directive where men needed 2 and women didn't. I became very angry. After thinking about it, I realized how easily people can aposticize. I never thought I would have a problem with church doctrine, but then this hit me. I now make it a point not to react negatively when I hear something I don't like. My kids saw how I reacted, and they started complaining about our Stake President who announced no sleepovers. So now, I keep it to myself and don't spread discontent and try to understand or at least accept things I don't like.

shawnlg wrote:I remember when I first heard this directive where men needed 2 and women didn't. I became very angry. After thinking about it, I realized how easily people can aposticize.

Not with this policy, but I was in the Bishopric at the time and became rather upset with someone over a fairly minor issue. Nobody went inactive, but I came to better understand why some active members just stop coming.

In Ward Counsel yesterday we went over Youth Protection and this very policy. I think it's worth noting that 2-deep leadership is not only about protecting kids, it's about protecting adults from false accusations.

The actually letter from Salt Lake lists a couple of ways men can serve in the Primary, 2-deep teachers is one of them. Keeping the door open (or having glass in the door), and having a member of the Primary Presidency randomly drop by is another.

PNMarkW2 wrote:N

The actually letter from Salt Lake lists a couple of ways men can serve in the Primary, 2-deep teachers is one of them. Keeping the door open (or having glass in the door), and having a member of the Primary Presidency randomly drop by is another.

Our branch went to the two-deep policy for both men teams and women teams - plus the small glass windows have been installed on all doors.

As a scoutmaster for 18 years, we always used the same policy anytime we interacted with the boys and teens.

I hope none will be hurt by my comment, but is very interesting viewing as cultural background affect policies, and its interpretation!
I think there are also different local situations. Here in Italy there are few primary teachers because all man are call in Priesthood (YM included) and SD organization. Branch/Ward are divided when reach 100 Sacrament meeting attendance; so always few Priesthood holder to cover all callings needed.
I like "pioneer units"! We have so many troubles but child abuse.