Quorum Presidency Meeting Agenda: Fill & Download for Free

Yes, of course. Chairman Graham scheduled confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to begin on October 12, 2020. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the Committee’s Democrats, will have the opportunity to ask questions of the nominee during those hearings.The strategic question is whether they will participate. Several Democratic Senators have already refused to meet individually with Judge Barrett, with the unintended effect of cutting down her meeting agenda and giving her more time to prepare for the hearings! And, of course, Sen. Harris is rather busy on the campaign trail for the Vice Presidency. One possible tactic Senate Democrats could consider in an attempt to slow down Judge Barrett’s confirmation is refusing to attend the Committee’s vote on the nominee, thus denying the necessary quorum.But in any case, they’ll still have the chance to ask questions if they attend the hearings.

The Lord gives according to your capacity and does not require us to run faster than we are able. So being called to preside over His Church requires patience, humility, and much affinity with the Holy Spirit, as well as a good understanding of His ways, first.Every calling and responsibility in the Church is about understanding how we can love our neighbour. From Sunday School instructor, to being an Apostle, passing by Elder’s Quorum President, Bishop, High Council member, Stake President, Area Seventy, and so forth.There are no callings given through merits other than personal revelations from God. Meaning that personal consecration, scriptural knowledge, and secular knowledge are quite irrelevant, or at the very least inconsequential.The process of calling a member anywhere in the Church goes something like this: the presiding council is called and all participants propose names whom they feel would be potential candidates for a certain calling. Then prayers are offered, one by one, in order to receive the inspiration from the Holy Spirit. There are no arguments, no convincing others, if all aren’t unanimous in the selection, then the meeting in adjourned, and re-scheduled at a later time. Then the process is the same; names are proposed, prayers are offered, and if all receive the same witness, then that name is elected.But as for the presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, someone must first be called as a Seventy, then as an Apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. At that point, there are no more calling by election; the eldest Apostle is always the next President of the Church.In other words, the President of the Church can typically serve as an Apostle many decades, perhaps cross on the other side before even having the opportunity to serve in the First Presidency. The only alternative would be to be called as First or Second Counselor to the President, and this is to the discretion of the President himself.In short, the President of the Church is the one outliving the others, having always served the longest time as an Apostle; that is to say, the Lord is the one deciding who lives and who dies, and who will preside over His Church.It should also be important to note that, the Quorum of the Twelve know one another very well. Each are quite like brothers, and none keep secrets from the others. This kind of proximity does not leave room for much hidden agenda; by the time someone is called a Seventy, any misconduct does not perdure. This is why we oftentime see a Seventy step down, or perhaps rarely another being excommunicated, but evern more rare are any member Quorum of the Twelve being found at fault of any kind.The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidency are composed of the finest men this Earth has to offer.So, how does one achieve the first presidency for The Church of Jesus Christ? By being the single best example of human being one can achieve, by following the example of the Savior.

I believe it to be, at its heart, an inspired agreement and an invaluable asset to BYU’s culture, prestige, and experience.I don’t think I or anyone needs to comment any further on the prohibition of drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex, cheating, crime, etc. Most everyone either agrees with those provisions or, at least, can respect them. As I was asked for my thoughts, I am going to assume the Honor Code’s more ‘subjective’ provisions are what is really in question here, as are the external policies that are followed to enforce the Honor Code.I am open to there being issues of enforcement, of course. Just as the university itself is; I have never gotten the impression that every single detail included in and attached to the Honor Code is perceived to be written in tablets of stone by the finger of God. It has been updated in the past, and as sticky issues have arisen, the university has made efforts to make appropriate adjustments. Realistically, no matter how correct the principles are, with humans being mortal there will always be mistakes made in our attempts to follow through on them. Cases will be mishandled, and if mishandling becomes institutionalized, it should be corrected.That’s not me saying that such-and-such change needs to be made or the university isn’t currently handling this or that correctly; that’s just a general observation to keep in mind.Besides, regardless of personal opinions, it should be remembered that the horror stories we hear about on the news or read about in the blogs are more exception than rule. Every year thousands of students pass through BYU without issue. But ‘normal’ doesn’t make news — it’s the sensational, the strange, the dissonant, and the heartbreaking that draws our attention. Such reports can seem to become normal because they’re all we ever hear about, but we risk creating an inaccurate understanding if we focus only on what is reported, and do not consciously establish the true infrequency of these events.That said, there’s apparently a petition going around that’s raising a bit of a stir. Why this petition is getting so much attention at this time, I’m not sure. But this one in particular, as I read it last night, seems to go far overboard. I’ll provide all of my thoughts, but I’ll try to break up my response into digestible portions.StandardsThe first question posed by the petition’s writer is, “why is it that BYU demands so much more of its students than the LDS church does of its temple worthy members?”Well, why shouldn’t it? The question is asked almost rhetorically, as if there can be no answer. But these are a different set of standards that exist for different reasons. Obviously similarities exist, but the objectives being pursued in the temples of the Church are not exactly identical to the objectives being pursued at Brigham Young University. I mean, receiving a temple recommend doesn’t depend on past academic excellence either, but you still need that to get into BYU, right? You can’t flash a temple recommend and be granted automatic acceptance into the school. Already, the standards must be higher. Or, at least, different.Speaking more directly about the doctrine of the Church, if one measures one’s own standard of conduct based simply on whether one meets the external qualifications to pass a temple recommend interview, one misses the mark entirely. Being worthy to obtain a temple recommend has never indicated that you are doing everything you are supposed to do and can rest on your laurels for the rest of your life, never again worrying about pesky things like self-improvement. That is true completely independent of anything BYU does.The university makes requests intended to specifically maximize the educational and spiritual potential of the institution. There’s no reason to be offended because someone asks you to do something just because it’s ‘more’ than what you are asked in a temple recommend interview.TattlingI don’t intend for this to appear as self-righteous as I know it’s going to appear for some readers, but during my entire time as a student at BYU, do you know how many times I worried about a classmate “tattling” on me to the Honor Code Office? Exactly zero. Because I knew what I agreed to and I lived by it, what reason was there to worry? That’s one of the best things about integrity — you don’t have to stress about getting caught if you don’t do what you know you aren’t supposed to do in the first place.And contrary to what the petition implies, sinning and breaking promises are not necessary parts of any given learning process.I also never got the impression that this was even a major thing in my time at BYU. Your mileage may vary, but I don’t recall much (actually any) active encouragement to report peers’ violations of the Honor Code. I know that reporting other students’ misbehavior was something that the university had a channel for (as they should), but it’s not like I lived in a totalitarian dystopia where an announcement was made every hour on the hour encouraging students to keep constant watch for misbehavior and to report any suspicions to the authorities immediately. This isn’t some Red Scare/witch hunt scenario like critics seem to want us to believe. Again, if abuses exist they should be rectified, but the simple existence of a channel to report violations is only reasonable.Hypothetically, imagine you are an average member of the Church and you happen to see the Elder’s Quorum President in your ward smoking weed out behind his apartment every other night. Do you not comment about it to your Bishop because it’s not your business? Or do you consider that this man’s effectiveness is compromised and that the community as a whole will suffer for it, and speak up? Opinions may vary, but the latter is an entirely valid decision. And no, it is not (or at least should not be) a decision rooted in any kind of malice or need for control.Beards, long hair, and piercingsThese are perhaps the most infamous aspects of BYU’s Honor Code, as they are rooted largely in culture rather than any known objective doctrines. As culture changes, policies like this often change too, and there’s nothing wrong with that.But there’s a large, fuzzy grey area between being “updated” and being “loosened.” Recently, female missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were allowed to wear formal pants while proselyting. Is that a loosening of previous restrictions simply because it was ‘too hard’ to wear a dress? Or was it an update that reflected a shift in culture that has come to view a woman wearing pants as no less professional because of it?So we must ask: in the world today, is having a clean-shaven or conservatively-pierced appearance viewed as a sign of character, class, and professionalism? It generally seems so. Therefore, I don’t have any problem with BYU including these as part of the Honor Code. It is not inherently unreasonable to ask for a respectful, well-kept appearance that communicates to the world a certain strength of character. Even if the reasons are subjective, they still exist.The Chastity LineSo the Honor Code includes a provision that members of the opposite sex not visit your private bedroom. I am left scratching my head at the petition’s dismissal of this provision as “weird.” … Why is that weird? Or rather, what justification do you have for spending time in opposite-sex bedrooms?This restriction is the butt of jokes sometimes (I saw some humorously put a line of masking tape at the threshold of the hallway and call it “the chastity line”), but that alone doesn’t mean the rule actually is a joke. It makes plenty of sense, and everyone I knew seemed to be fully aware of that.ForgivenessThe petition states that students “should be given the trust that the school will help them and that they can confide in their ecclesiastical leaders to try and work through any issues. Forgiveness should be at the core of the honor code as that is what Christ preaches and provides to all who earnestly seek it, why should BYU be any different?”I can understand that concern. I also feel that forgiveness should be a central principle in all our interactions with our fellow children of God.On the other hand, forgiveness does not mean absolution from all earthly consequences of our mistakes. I know an incredible man who almost died of lung cancer many years after he fully repented of his lifelong smoking habit. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t fully forgiven; it just shows that consequences are a fact of life.The reality is that a contractual agreement only has strength if both parties can actually be expected to obey the terms of the agreement. And if the contract is broken, the contract is broken. That’s a natural, rational consequence, and by their nature, contracts depend on such consequences in order to be efficacious.To go back to the hypothetical example of the Elder’s Quorum President, let’s say he comes into the Bishop’s office (invited or not, doesn’t matter), confesses his mistake, and expresses a desire to repent. In many cases he will lose his calling as Elder’s Quorum President (yes, lose it — not simply be placed on some kind of probation). And even after his repentance is complete and he is restored to full standing, he’s not going to immediately and automatically get his calling back. It’s not that he doesn’t deserve it anymore, it just doesn’t work that way. The position shouldn’t be left empty or under-utilized, so it was given to someone else who was, at that moment, ready for it. That’s perfectly fair and perfectly reasonable. So is treating enrollment slots at BYU the same way.If you break the Honor Code and you receive the consequences associated with the agreement that you yourself explicitly accepted, you should expect those consequences. It doesn’t mean your life is ruined, that you’re condemned to some version of hell, or that you will never be forgiven. It just means you made a mistake and will have to deal with the consequences associated with it. All kinds of support should be and are available to lovingly assist you in the process, but such support and forgiveness shouldn’t require acting as if the mistake never happened.In summationShould we update the Honor Code? Definitely, when appropriate. Occasional updates should be expected. Especially concerning enforcement, there is surely room for improvement. But this petition, despite claiming to ask for a simple “update,” is in fact asking for a general withdrawal of expectations to relax the standards and make student life more ordinary. There’s no disguising that. There’s a specific agenda behind this; not just a request that the Honor Code be reasonably examined or updated.At the end of it all, I fail to grasp why this is so controversial in the first place. Is it really so dreadful to shave? Does it hurt to wear knee-length shorts (although I will comment that that one is loosely enforced anyway, in my experience)? Considering all of the sacrifices and investments any given student is already making for their education, why is keeping up a certain expectation of appearance the straw the breaks your back?Brigham Young University is a great school, and the Honor Code is a part of that. Where reasonable concerns exist, in my experience, reasonable exceptions and/or adjustments have usually been made. Extreme situations can and should be taken for what they are worth, and specific, targeted, well-reasoned concerns should be addressed. But the Honor Code as a whole does not need to be demonized when it works so well for so many thousands of people.Honor Code Office Q&A