New guidance on who presides in the Bishop's absence?

Hi guys,

Does the 1st counselor in a Bishopric always preside in the Bishop's absence, or can the Bishop assign the 2nd counselor to preside? This policy document from Dec 1971 clearly indicates the 1st counselor presides and that the 2nd counselor only presides when both Bishop and 1st counselor are absent. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng). That said, there is nothing I could find in either Handbook that goes beyond this: "The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of ..." This seems to be more open in terms of which counselor presides, sort of implying it is at the discretion of the Bishop. It really isn't a big deal which one, but more of a curiosity if the policy has definitively changed between 1971 and today. Thoughts?

I do not believe that the policy has changed, even though the wording is less specific in the Handbooks. 'A counselor" is more brief than "the first counselor, and the second counselor if the first counselor is not present."

brazilianpratt wrote:This policy document from Dec 1971 clearly indicates the 1st counselor presides and that the 2nd counselor only presides when both Bishop and 1st counselor are absent. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng).

Generally, a new Handbook succeeds a prior letter. The oldest letter I can find in the Official Communication Library is 2005. So, at this point (several Handbooks since 1971), I'd consider that letter "interesting", but non-authoritative.

One thing about the old article is wrong. A high councilor does not receive the sacrament first. He used to, but that changed in the 90s.