Priesthood presence at church building during Activity Days

Is there an official church policy that states that there must be at least one (or more) priesthood holder at the church building during church activities? I have some concerns about the lack of a priesthood presence during Activity Days which are held during the week at the church building in the late afternoon. My 9 year old daughter attends and, fortunately, my job gives me the flexibilty to be there every time except when I travel. Most of the time I'm the only male (priesthood holder) at the building, so when I cannot make it I'm pretty sure that there is no male presence there (which makes me very nervous). I'm going to raise my concerns with the Bishop, but wanted to see if there is an official church policy. Thanks in advance.

Adult supervision is required (Handbook 2, 13.6.2) If its an overnight activity, enough priesthood holders should be present to be able to provide support and protection (Handbook 2 13.6.12).

Since Activity Days are not an overnight activity, no priesthood presence is required. That is, assuming the female leaders are adults.

allenjpl wrote:Adult supervision is required (Handbook 2, 13.6.2) If its an overnight activity, enough priesthood holders should be present to be able to provide support and protection (Handbook 2 13.6.12).

Since Activity Days are not an overnight activity, no priesthood presence is required. That is, assuming the female leaders are adults.

Thanks for the reply. That is what I saw in the HB as well. I was hoping there had been an official notice/letter about this situation that didn't make it into the HB.

I seem to remember hearing a similar rule. It's possible that it's a Stake President's rule or a "suggestion" from the area authority.

RussellHltn wrote:I seem to remember hearing a similar rule. It's possible that it's a Stake President's rule or a "suggestion" from the area authority.

I remember hearing something as well several years back. I figured I would find something in the HB or elsewhere, but haven't had any luck. I guess that means it should be handled by local leadership.

RussellHltn wrote: It's possible that it's a Stake President's rule or a "suggestion" from the area authority.

steveheath wrote:I guess that means it should be handled by local leadership.

A lot depends on the location and the time of the event. Some priesthood leaders are comfortable with less "presence" on some occasions, and others require it 24/7 because of the environment in which the meetinghouse is located.

Local leadership should know the conditions in which their meet and handle safety with those considerations in mind, along with the instructions in the Handbook.

I'd caution against relying on priesthood holders to provide security at activities. Instead, all adults should be educated on how to provide security for themselves and for youth.

All adults should know basic safety principles, such as observing the parking lot before exiting the building; knowing where the publicly available phone in the building is; understanding that emergency phone numbers are posted next to that phone; and they should all be informed that if something seems amiss on the church property, they should notify the police.

Recently in my ward, the Relief Society was pushing very hard to have a priesthood presence at their activities citing "some policy they once heard". The bishopric told them that it wasn't necessary but could be arranged if they wanted. The Relief Society insisted that it must be done because on more than one occasion in the previous two years, someone had approached sisters leaving an activity and flashed the sisters in the parking lot. What baffled the bishopric was that no one had notified the bishopric and, more disturbing, no one had notified the police.

We have made sure a priesthood holder is present at each of their activities since then, but that was mostly to appease the Relief Society presidency. The more important steps we took were to write out safety recommendations and policies that the women could implement themselves and then having a detective from the local police force come speak at a Relief Society meeting about personal safety. At the end of the day, the message we wanted them to get was that the primary line of defense for any person's safety is their own education, preparedness, and awareness. Having established that principle, we were happy to have the priesthood help out, but we were clear that priesthood holders were not and should not be the primary defense.

HB 1 8.3.5 states clearly that women and children should not be in an unlocked building alone.

bryanwilson wrote:HB 1 8.3.5 states clearly that women and children should not be in an unlocked building alone.

It actually says that nobody should be in an unlocked building alone. As in, if I'm working at the church late at night printing up the tax statements and I'm the only one around, the door should be locked. If there's someone with me, then I'm not alone. If there's more than one person at the Activity Day, then nobody is alone.

I fully support nutterb's suggestion. If you want protection, pay for a security guard. If you want security, educate the members on safety principles. If you want a blessing or support, call a priesthood holder.

I just wanted to add a 'thank you' to the original poster and all those who responded. We had a similar situation and question here in our local ward. A quick Google search took me to this thread. The direct handbook sections pertaining to this were very helpful. Thanks, everyone!

We issue building keys to women. If they weren't supposed to be there without a man around then... (I don't even want to finish that thought.)

mrrad wrote:We issue building keys to women. If they weren't supposed to be there without a man around then... (I don't even want to finish that thought.)

If the key could only open the outside door, that might be a valid point. Particularly if there's been a problem with compliance.

However, it the directive can be complied with if the sister brings her husband - who may not hold a calling that would call for him to have a key.

I feel like adding onto the instructions in the Handbook of Instructions is counter-productive. One of the reasons we are efficient as an organization is that we accept the instructions we're given because of the trust we have of Priesthood leadership and auxiliaries through the Holy Ghost. I feel like our time is better spent taking care of the people we home teach, studying our scriptures, and of course with our families than playing security guard. Previous posters make a good point that where there are security concerns, accommodations should be made and protocols explained that are consistent with instruction in the Handbook, and principles very clearly found in the scriptures.

On the discussion of doctrinal principle, it is understood from the Doctrine and Covenants (20:38-67) that where we gather to do things that are related to ordinances of salvation or anything explicitly within the blessings and responsibilities of the Priesthood (in other words, official, general "meetings"), there should be one or more holders of the Priesthood present. Where there is no clear need for the Priesthood holder to be there, Women in the Relief Society can certainly manage on their own. Heaven knows they certainly take care of their Visiting Teaching more consistently than we do.

So yeah, no official rule ANYWHERE. Seems like some local leaders may require it. I was just the volunteer priesthood holder last night at an activity. A highly depressed and unpredictable male member of the ward randomly showed up at 7 too. I talked with him for 2 hours. Could be a handy policy. The gals in my YSA ward are super tough and capable of anyhting, but I was glad to handle an emotional burden so they could enjoy their activity.

danny_sch wrote:So yeah, no official rule ANYWHERE. Seems like some local leaders may require it.

If it seems to be an issue, talk to your local leaders

kisaac wrote:

danny_sch wrote:So yeah, no official rule ANYWHERE. Seems like some local leaders may require it.

If it seems to be an issue, talk to your local leaders

Not all church buildings are in the best of areas. I don't think local leaders would be exceeding their authority by adding this restriction.

We usually meet in a room that has an outside door or keep the interior doors open so we can hear the doorbell. All doors stay locked the whole time and we let people in. I agree that if you implement an awareness position you can avoid a lot of trouble. We did have an incident one morning for seminary when a bum slept in the bathroom, but the police were called. If you do have any worries, call the police. In this day of cell phones we are all more prepared to deal with emergencies. I always felt Activity Days was something you could do in homes. In areas where travel is an issue, it's good to have options. Drive around the parking lot before going in. Make sure parking lots are well lit. (Trunk or Treats are a potential hazard with low light.) Lock the door after yourself. I will say that we have recently been informed that one key should be shared among each presidency - EQ, RS, Primary, YW. I am trying to comply but with ward boundaries over 4000 square miles, this policy is a hardship. If we get to an activity and the one with the key is ill, we have to send someone to the sick person's house to get the key. Sometimes we are lucky and this is only 30 minutes from the church, which means our activity is set back an hour. So there are some other things that can be helpful with security that vary from area to area, and hopefully there will be no "one size fits all" for a church that must be adaptable for local needs.

heidiawbrey wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:34 amI will say that we have recently been informed that one key should be shared among each presidency - EQ, RS, Primary, YW. I am trying to comply but with ward boundaries over 4000 square miles, this policy is a hardship. If we get to an activity and the one with the key is ill, we have to send someone to the sick person's house to get the key. Sometimes we are lucky and this is only 30 minutes from the church, which means our activity is set back an hour.

If you frequently have issues with ward leaders not having a key and traveling long distances, you might consider having a trustworthy member who lives close to the meetinghouse called as a building specialist, who can keep a backup key handy for authorized ward members to use.

sbradshaw wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:08 pm

heidiawbrey wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:34 amI will say that we have recently been informed that one key should be shared among each presidency - EQ, RS, Primary, YW. I am trying to comply but with ward boundaries over 4000 square miles, this policy is a hardship. If we get to an activity and the one with the key is ill, we have to send someone to the sick person's house to get the key. Sometimes we are lucky and this is only 30 minutes from the church, which means our activity is set back an hour.

If you frequently have issues with ward leaders not having a key and traveling long distances, you might consider having a trustworthy member who lives close to the meetinghouse called as a building specialist, who can keep a backup key handy for authorized ward members to use.

Am wondering if the bishopric is also only allowed one key. Seems like a draconian policy, but perhaps there were issues in the past. If it were me, I would call, text and/or email the bishop every time this is an issue. Is he aware of the hardship this policy is causing?

heidiawbrey wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:34 am I will say that we have recently been informed that one key should be shared among each presidency - EQ, RS, Primary, YW. I am trying to comply but with ward boundaries over 4000 square miles, this policy is a hardship.

This is likely a local policy, perhaps created due to past problems. It's not unusual for keys to get out of control over time and it's expensive to rekey the whole building.

Some discussion may be needed with local leaders to find a workable middle ground.

russellhltn wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:35 pm

heidiawbrey wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:34 am I will say that we have recently been informed that one key should be shared among each presidency - EQ, RS, Primary, YW. I am trying to comply but with ward boundaries over 4000 square miles, this policy is a hardship.

This is likely a local policy, perhaps created due to past problems. It's not unusual for keys to get out of control over time and it's expensive to rekey the whole building.

Some discussion may be needed with local leaders to find a workable middle ground.

You might also talk with your FM manager. The Church is rolling out a new electronic entry system (Kindoo) which uses a smartphone app, so no more issues with exterior door keys, fobs or entry codes It's fairly low cost. Several stakes in our FM area have it installed. It seems to work well and eliminates most of the past problems with keys and unauthorized building access.

swigginton wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:22 pm The Church is rolling out a new electronic entry system (Kindoo) which uses a smartphone app, so no more issues with exterior door keys, fobs or entry codes It's fairly low cost. Several stakes in our FM area have it installed. It seems to work well and eliminates most of the past problems with keys and unauthorized building access.

That sounds better than my idea of microchipping our members. Hopefully our area gets a roll out soon.

Before we switched to our current Medeco keys, we used Marlok keys, which were electronic, and could supposedly be disabled if they were reported as lost or stolen. However, the church decided to replace them with the Medeco keys for some reason I never learned. I suppose one problem with electronic locks is that they may not work during a power failure.

drepouille wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 6:36 am Before we switched to our current Medeco keys, we used Marlok keys, which were electronic, and could supposedly be disabled if they were reported as lost or stolen. However, the church decided to replace them with the Medeco keys for some reason I never learned. I suppose one problem with electronic locks is that they may not work during a power failure.

Marlok went out of business, necessitating the change.

The electronic locks run on battery packs, they should not be relying on AC power. Of course, if the battery packs fail or get old which is more likely to happen in cold weather, then the locks will fail, but hopefully not all electronic doors at once. Even with the electronic locks, there should be at least one door at chapels with a regular old fashioned key lock, which the bishopric metal keys work on.

I've heard about the electronic keys, but they've never made it to my corner of the kingdom. It's worth having the ward/stake talk to FM, but I wouldn't count on it being a universal rollout based one forum member seeing it. Things like this probably need to be budgeted, and it's probably too late for the 2023 budget.

You probably need an interim solution, such as one key per presidency.