Unable to Enter an Aaronic Priesthood holder as an Assistant

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

Nobody else come across this problem?

"...worthy to have a temple recommend." Does this imply Melchizedek priesthood or...?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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".

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.

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.

dedgovel wrote: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.

dedgovel wrote: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.

drepouille wrote: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.

mevans wrote: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.

mevans wrote: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.

drepouille wrote: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.