Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

[dedgovel]

So a year later and still no answer to this.
Ran into this issues myself today.
The Handbook still only outlines that Assistants assigned to finance, should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[eblood66]

So a year later and still no answer to this.

We already had an answer from a developer indicating the change was intentional. I wouldn't expect any other answer.

Ran into this issues myself today.
The Handbook still only outlines that Assistants assigned to finance, should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.

We don't know what's involved in updating something in the handbook (approvals, reviews, translations, etc) so we also have no idea of the expected time frame for such changes to appear. It may still be in progress. But, regardless, the system won't allow someone without the MP to be recorded (and thus given rights) so someone without the MP can't effectively hold an assistant clerk calling anymore.

[mevans]

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.

That might be nice, but it isn't always going to happen. The change to require Melchizedek Priesthood is interesting. Here are some thoughts:

• Do branches have the same requirements? When I served as a missionary, I was a branch president and we basically had zero Melchizedek Priesthood.
• I'm aware of a ward several years ago where a brother who wasn't completely active served as an assistant clerk. He did have the Melchizedek Priesthood and had been endowed, but I don't know if he had a current recommend. The bishop called him to be an assistant clerk and he was very faithful and diligent in serving in that calling, although he didn't come church very often on Sundays. I figure in this case, the bishop had the keys of judgment and was impressed that this brother could serve and the stake presidency agreed.

[russellhltn]

Do branches have the same requirements?

Good question. Handbook 1: 13.4 refers to Wards, but I don't see anything that applies to branches. In the introduction, it says that generally "ward" applies to "branch". So, in the absence of any directions that applies to a branch, I'd say that section applies.

but I don't know if he had a current recommend.

There is no requirement to have a recommend - only to be worthy of one.

[mrckaizen]

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.

In a YSA ward a priest preparing for the Melchizedek priesthood, attending his meetings, and progressing in the gospel would be a great addition to the clerks. I don't believe that just because some already is a Melchizedek Priesthood holder he somehow is more trustworthy (righteous) than any other active member.