Ward meeting presiding authority "line of succession"

I apologize if the title of this thread is poorly written. I can't think of any good titles.

I borrowed the phrase "line of succession" from the US presidential line of succession, which dictates who serves as President until either the elected President's term expires or the elected President returns to office.

My question is, who presides over a sacrament meeting if neither the bishop nor a higher authority is present and serving in his official capacity?

The "line of succession" used in determining who presides in a ward meeting might look like this:

General authority->Area authority->Stake president->1st counselor in stake presidency->2nd counselor in stake presidency->Bishop->1st counselor in bishopric->2nd counselor in bishopric->High Priest group leader*->Most senior High Priest present->Elders quorum president->Most senior elder->Priests quorum first assistant*->Priest quorum second assistant->Priest quorum third assistant (if the position exists)->Most senior priest->Teachers quorum president**->1st counselor in TQ presidency->2nd counselor in TQ presidency->Most senior teacher->Deacons quorum president->1st counselor in DQ presidency->2nd counselor in presidency->Most senior deacon

* indicates positions whose holders are not given keys to preside over their respective quorums.
** Absent any priests, a sacrament meeting cannot be held. Therefore, the TQ president will never preside over a sacrament meeting.

moonman239 wrote:My question is, who presides over a sacrament meeting if neither the bishop nor a higher authority is present and serving in his official capacity?

This information is found in Handbook 1. I cannot site the section because I do not have access to the handbook.

jdlessley wrote:

moonman239 wrote:My question is, who presides over a sacrament meeting if neither the bishop nor a higher authority is present and serving in his official capacity?

This information is found in Handbook 1. I cannot site the section because I do not have access to the handbook.

The only information I could find is in section 2.1.5 but that only mentions down to bishopric counselors. I know that in our stake there would never be a case where someone else has to preside. If the bishop and both counselors could not attend then one of the stake presidency would always come. The high priests group leader might conduct but a member of the stake presidency would preside.

moonman239 wrote:My question is, who presides over a sacrament meeting if neither the bishop nor a higher authority is present and serving in his official capacity?

If the bishop is absent, his 1st counselor presides. If they are both absent, his 2nd counselor presides.

If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates the high priests group leader, but he could authorize another priesthood holder instead. If the stake president were to designate a priesthood holder other than the high priests group leader, the designated priesthood holder would preside at that sacrament meeting.

Your reference for all the world to see is in Handbook 2:18.2.

By the way, a member of the stake presidency is always "serving in his official capacity" within the boundaries of his stake, and presides when he attends any sacrament meeting in the stake, unless a more senior member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is present.

Would you be able to clarify most senior High priest to mean chronological age , or length they have been a High Priest? Thanks , Niels Nohr

nielsaxelnohr wrote:Would you be able to clarify most senior High priest to mean chronological age , or length they have been a High Priest? Thanks , Niels Nohr

There's no need to clarify the term "most senior high priest", since that is not a term that appears in the handbooks. It was mentioned in the very speculative original post, but as lajackson clarified, the actual line of succession is much simpler. Handbook 2, the beginning of section 18.2 has all the details.

"If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates the high priests group leader, but he could authorize another priesthood holder instead."

Interesting side note. Google "LDS offering sacrament bishopric absent preside" turns up both this article, and the relevant section of handbook 2

Related, but slightly different circumstances: Stake Girls Camp.

Who is the presiding authority when no member of the stake presidency is present? A Bishop? If so, which one? If no Bishop is present? High priest? if so, which one? If not high priest, an Elder? If so, which one?

We recently had this very circumstance, where we needed an authority to make a decision for the camp; there were no members of the stake presidency in attendance; we appealed to the longest serving bishop in the stake. Was this correct? and can you please point to instruction supporting this position?

bccoop2 wrote:Related, but slightly different circumstances: Stake Girls Camp.

Who is the presiding authority when no member of the stake presidency is present? A Bishop? If so, which one? If no Bishop is present? High priest? if so, which one? If not high priest, an Elder? If so, which one?

I don't see any automatic line of succession in that case. Handbook 2: 18.3 stops at "his counselors". (I assume that means stake presidency counselors, but I suppose one could make a case that it might include high counselors as well.)

You didn't say what kind of decision was involved. In most cases, I'd think it would fall to the line of authority for organizing the activity: absent any specific assignment, that would most likely be the high counselor assigned to stake YM, the stake YW presidency.

bccoop2 wrote:we appealed to the longest serving bishop in the stake. Was this correct? and can you please point to instruction supporting this position?

I am not aware that there is any official instruction for this situation, but under the circumstances I think you were okay, although I would have discussed it with all of the bishops present. A high councilor never presides, but it was a stake activity, and if a high councilor was present, I would have included him in the discussion. And, of course, the stake Young Women presidency.

Nowadays, you might also have been able to call a member of the stake presidency for assistance.

I've been trying hard to write something I think is appropriate for the situation, but I can't even imagine a scenario where a priesthood leader would need to make a decision at a Young Women's camp, unless all the stake young women leaders were hit by lightning or somehow dead. In my mind this scenario envisions Women Leaders incapable of making a decision. A 'Senior' Bishop has NO Priesthood keys, nor delegated authority to 'Preside' and/or make a decision FOR THE CAMP.

johnshaw wrote:I've been trying hard to write something I think is appropriate for the situation, but I can't even imagine a scenario where a priesthood leader would need to make a decision at a Young Women's camp, unless all the stake young women leaders were hit by lightning or somehow dead.

While I struggle at that as well, it could be the question is more doctrinal than organizational. That could affect if a particular activity is acceptable or not.

bccoop2 wrote:Related, but slightly different circumstances: Stake Girls Camp.

Who is the presiding authority when no member of the stake presidency is present? A Bishop? If so, which one? If no Bishop is present? High priest? if so, which one? If not high priest, an Elder? If so, which one?

We recently had this very circumstance, where we needed an authority to make a decision for the camp; there were no members of the stake presidency in attendance; we appealed to the longest serving bishop in the stake. Was this correct? and can you please point to instruction supporting this position?

Stake High Councilor over young women's would preside in the absence of a member of the stake presidency. Other than that the Stake should designate who presides before hand.

rflamb wrote:

bccoop2 wrote:Related, but slightly different circumstances: Stake Girls Camp.

Who is the presiding authority when no member of the stake presidency is present? A Bishop? If so, which one? If no Bishop is present? High priest? if so, which one? If not high priest, an Elder? If so, which one?

We recently had this very circumstance, where we needed an authority to make a decision for the camp; there were no members of the stake presidency in attendance; we appealed to the longest serving bishop in the stake. Was this correct? and can you please point to instruction supporting this position?

Stake High Councilor over young women's would preside in the absence of a member of the stake presidency. Other than that the Stake should designate who presides before hand.

I see no justification in any handbook for your declaration that the high councilor assigned to Young Women would preside. Handbook 2 is very careful to say that "The stake president assigns one of his counselors to oversee the stake Young Women organization" (HB 2, 10.10.1), but "The stake president assigns a member of the high council to work with the stake Young Women presidency" (HB 2, 10.10.2). Note that the high councilor is not overseeing, but rather working with the Young Women presidency. Section 15.3 ("Represent the Stake Presidency") is careful to maintain this same distinction.

The strongest statement I can find in this regard is in HB 2, Section 10.8.6, which says: "Camp leaders organize and conduct the camp program under the direction of the Young Women presidency." I don't see any reason for the assumption that some seem to be making that a man with no direct line of authority over the stake Young Women presidency (which describes any high councilor as well as any bishop) would have more authority than those specifically given authority to direct the camp: the stake Young Women presidency.

lajackson wrote:

bccoop2 wrote:we appealed to the longest serving bishop in the stake. Was this correct? and can you please point to instruction supporting this position?

I am not aware that there is any official instruction for this situation, but under the circumstances I think you were okay, although I would have discussed it with all of the bishops present. A high councilor never presides, but it was a stake activity, and if a high councilor was present, I would have included him in the discussion. And, of course, the stake Young Women presidency.

Nowadays, you might also have been able to call a member of the stake presidency for assistance.

Hi!

Just to clarify:
even when it is not that common, High councilors can preside, for example in handbook 2 20.3.4: "Services That Involve More Than One Ward. For Eight-Year-Old Children of Record. A member of the stake presidency usually presides over baptismal services for 8-year-old children of record when the services involve more than one ward. However, the stake presidency may authorize a high councilor to preside. A member of the bishopric from each of the wards involved should attend."

bccoop2 wrote:Related, but slightly different circumstances: Stake Girls Camp.

Who is the presiding authority when no member of the stake presidency is present? A Bishop? If so, which one? If no Bishop is present? High priest? if so, which one? If not high priest, an Elder? If so, which one?

We recently had this very circumstance, where we needed an authority to make a decision for the camp; there were no members of the stake presidency in attendance; we appealed to the longest serving bishop in the stake. Was this correct? and can you please point to instruction supporting this position?

I have a similar question along with this for Ward activities and when it is and is not required for someone on the presiding Bishopric presidency to preside over the activity? For example, does the Bishop or one of his counselors need to preside over a Youth Picnic activity at the park, Primary Easter egg hunt, etc.

The auxiliary head has all the delegated priesthood authority required to 'preside' in their auxiliary meetings/activities, etc...

Handbook 13.4 under activities has this interesting tid-bid that is the only reference that might in a round-about way, indicate the importance of a 'presiding authority' at planned activities.

"Members of the bishopric or stake presidency are invited to attend as much of the conference as possible. Young Men and Young Women presidencies are encouraged to attend the entire conference."

If the Bishopric/Stake Presidency is differentiated in a way that the handbook indicates from the Young Men and Young Women presidencies it indicates, to me, there isn't a need for a 'presiding authority' at an activity outside the leader of the org that is running the activity.

Not sure how much help this will be, but something interesting did happen this week in sacrament meeting. I am part of a very small branch that has, I believe, 29 active members if you dont count the children that are too young to be baptized, and this past week, for various reasons the branch president, and both of his counselors were not present. This was not anticipated, because one of the two counselors was expected to be there, bit was called in to work early that morning, too late for any adjustments or planning. The result was the very nervous elder's quorum president doing a wonderful job studdering his way through presiding and conducting the meeting of 14 members on his own. I felt kind of bad for him because he was clearly unprepared, I think he was made aware of the situation when he woke up just a couple hours before the meeting began, but it was still a wonderful meeting.

I realize this is almost two years old but I figured I would chime in. I presided as and EQP over a sacrament meeting because the bishop and both counselors were out of town. I was told that this was because I held keys and the HPGL did not. I was also told that if I had been absent, it actually would have been the teacher's quorum president that would have presided. This came from the bishop at the time.

EthanBratt wrote:I presided as and EQP over a sacrament meeting because the bishop and both counselors were out of town. I was told that this was because I held keys and the HPGL did not. I was also told that if I had been absent, it actually would have been the teacher's quorum president that would have presided. This came from the bishop at the time.

The presiding authority for a sacrament meeting is specified in Handbook 2 Section 18.2 in the first two paragraphs. When the entire bishopric is absent and there is no higher authority it's up the to stake president. There is no restriction other than it must be a priesthood holder although it does indicate it is usually the Elder's Quorum President. But if the elder's quorum president isn't available I expect another Melchizedek priesthood holder would be chosen.

Most senior High Priest present
Is that in years since ordination or in age?

williamgdunbar wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 12:56 pm Most senior High Priest present
Is that in years since ordination or in age?

It appears you are referencing the outdated information in this quite old thread and the references that have changed in the more recent General Handbook.

The updated reference is General Handbook, 29.2.1.2, Presiding at Sacrament Meeting. It states: "The bishop presides at sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy in his area, or a General Authority attends. If the bishop and his counselors are not able to attend sacrament meeting, the stake president designates who presides. Normally he designates the elders quorum president. However, he could invite another Melchizedek Priesthood holder."