Downgrading of bishops

[TheChristian]

The Apostle Paul needed no man to make him an Apostle, he was called directly by the Lord Himself......
Paul tells us this in his letters............
I discovered in my youth that if a man has a desire to serve the Lord, then that desire has been implanted in him by Christ Jesus Himself, hence he is already called and can go forth in the name of his Lord without the sanction of any mortal man.......
I found that the greatest obstacle to a man showing desire and faith like this to step out and proclaim the Good News of Christ is oft his own fellow church men and ecclesiactical leaders whom seek to keep such power to themselves and under their controll and oft they will go to hellish lengths to destroy such freedoms and liberties that attend the man of simple faith and has such desires to serve God.........
In my life time thru simply following the desire to serve God without the hinderance or restrictions of religious men and their so called Authority have witnessed marvelous conversions, signs, wonders and miracles and nigh apon every occasion my biggest opposition came from Religious leaders.
When a church is led by one man, that church has set a limit apon every members faith, to that of the mortal man that leads them.........
That was never the way of true Freedom and Faith.

Billy Graham as a youth simply went into a field and prayed, whilst praying he felt the desire to go out into the world and tell people about Christ Jesus.........
That young man was used in a mighty way to revive and stir up the christians thru out the earth and millions of souls accepted the Lord as their personal saviour........

[BenMcCrea]

I love it when the bishop is filled with the Holy Spirit and is guided in his actions.

My first Bishop was a prophet. Kinda went downhill after that.

[tribrac]

Maybe I will try to find it later....

Sometime near the start of this new church era (I like to call it the Katie Kelley era), the SLTrib published the results of some opinion polls conducted on LDS members. As I recall the survey was done by LDS Inc, (may have been the SLTrib), but it asked members a series of questions about their feelings about their bishop, Stk president and the GAs. What they found was that members trusted their local bishops more, were more likely to believe something taught by their local bishop, and felt the bishop cared about them more than the Stk president and way more than the GAs. And it wasn't even close. I want to say something like 70% of respondents believed their bishop and only 10% believed the GAs. Of course this was at the same time women were demanding more leadership roles.

It wasn't long after that there were a number of changes that seemed to diminish the Bishop's role, elevate the YW and RS presidents and to elevate and promote the prophet as the central figure.

[Rubicon]

I tend to believe that if it ain't broke don't fix it. Abolishing the HP groups in each ward was unwise in my view. The new system doesn't appear to have improved anything. In fact, abolishing stake Seventy's Quorum was probably counterproductive too.

I agree. The high priests quorum is now just the stake presidency, high council, and bishoprics. All other ordained high priests are in the elders quorum (that doesn't even make linguistic sense).

The changes were made, I think, to reduce the number of male callings to help units that don't have many capable men (small branches) --- e.g., high priest's group leaderships and instructors, young men's presidency, etc.

I agree that it was a mistake dissolving the seventies quorums and making them high priests in the early 80s. And, the important role of the high council in disciplinary councils (there's even a D&C section detailing the process, now obsolete) has been done away with.

Most of the changes indicate that the Brethren feel like the members are incapable and unwilling --- they seem to be catering to a lowest common denominator (e.g., baby manuals, 2 hour block, ministering in place of home/visiting teaching, kids and girls can witness baptisms, etc.).

[Vision]

In my wards, the Elders Quorum President does nothing. No interviews, no visits, no ministering assignments.

Sounds like a great EQ president. He doesn't proscribe to the busy work ideology of the Church.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I think we've done way too much leadership worship in general. I also think we've set unreasonable expectations for Bishops. The role of the priesthood is to learn how to serve and become like Christ. And, I would add, this priesthood responsibility should only be taken upon a person when they receive a personal witness/experience in that they feel they are called to the work. None of this 12, 14, 16 years of age, and you now automatically qualify for a certain level of priesthood responsibility.

[Fred]

The difference now us that the call is initiated by the prospective missionary. It's really an application.

And kind of like Walmart, they will take almost anyone who applies ...

And sometimes the manager shoots the employees.

[JandD6572]

In my wards, the Elders Quorum President does nothing. No interviews, no visits, no ministering assignments.

Sounds like a great EQ president. He doesn't proscribe to the busy work ideology of the Church.

Before I even left the church, we did not have a single visit, not a phone call, or even a how are you doin, or what can we help you with in years. shm!

[p8riot]

A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?

This is the result of a bureaucracy trying to (mis)apply secular management and leadership principles instead of true revelation and direction from Heaven. Yes, delegation is a true principle. But if you delegate tasks without the authority to make decisions along with those tasks, it will fail. It gives the higher ups and excuse when things fail- "it's the members' fault, they're not doing what "the Lord" asked them to do. If the members actually do succeed in doing all the extra work they've been given, then they will say- "See?! We have revelation!"

More of the STP that actually do the work at church will get burned out and leave. This will just reinforce in church leadership minds that they need new "global" converts to offset the loss and they will keep embracing the NWO to facilitate that (in their minds).

[Serragon]

A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?

It is funny how we redefine the church around policy changes. As you said, we are now at the point where the Bishop and his counselors are to almost exclusively be focused on the youth, and this is being portrayed as the true order of things and very inspired. But if we look through history at what a Bishop is supposed to do, leading the youth is never mentioned. So how did we get to the point?

First, we decided that the Aaronic priesthood would become our youth program for boys. Whereas previously the AP was populated by adult men with very specific responsibilities and duties, it is now a class boys are put in based upon their age. Almost all of the responsibility has been removed and the power of the AP is almost never manifest.

Now, since the Bishop is the highest office in the AP (which really means that he is responsible for all of the temporal and church administrative duties), and since we have made a mockery of the AP by making it the equivalent of our young men's program, it makes perfect sense to determine that the Bishop really should be focusing on the youth instead of his actual duties.

and just like that, you have something that is 180 degrees from what it should be, all done very logically and systematically.

I remember during my first stint as EQP my Bishop asked what I was doing to reactivate prospective Elders. I said I wasn't doing anything, as those men were all part of AP quorums and it was the duty of those quorum presidents to work on reactivating their own quorum members. He asked if I expected a bunch of 12 year olds to go meet with these adult men. I asked him why he called those boys to be Deacons quorum presidency if he didn't expect them to actually serve all memebers of their quorum. It went on like this for a while. He was irritated with me, but he understood the point I was making. That we have made a mockery of the priesthood of God by the trivial way we confer and implement it.

[thaabit]

Yes, Bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood (AP) calling which can be filled by a High Priest when there isn't a direct descendant of Aaron present (has there ever been one?). We've kinda morphed bishop into the president of the Ward, which in a sense is true, but only for AP duties. The Elders Quorum President (EQP) is an actual president which means he has the keys and presides over the Elders under the direction of the Stake President (SP). Having been an EQP twice in singles wards, it's been an interesting experience. In theory, once someone becomes an Elder, they really are no longer under the bishop's authority. Reality is something else altogether. Having been an EQP in a singles ward, the Bishop acted more like my boss than a peer, which isn't how it's supposed to work. But you have to play along to get along. Of course, no one would ever want to counsel with their single EQP, so all those changes are fairly moot in a singles ward. Also, I don't know why people are counseling w/the church about anything but spiritual matters. If someone wanted mental health advice from me, I'd tell them to get off SSRIs... In the end, most bishops are good ppl trying to make things work, as are EQPs, RSPs, etc.

But I agree that making the AP the youth program does make the bishop seem like the youth pastor. And making the singles ward the singles program of the church is also extremely problematic, and I have long wished they would do away with them and have an actual singles program. I'm not holding out much hope at this point. I was happy we got out of scouts which I thought and hoped we would do for many years, but the replacement doesn't seem great (someone w/actual experience should chime in on that). I think we will just continue to double-down on the notion of YSA wards and SA (single adult, 31-45 w/out kids, ie midsingles) wards. That leaves ppl like me, who age out of a midsingles ward having never been married, in a bit of a lurch. Singles are 2nd class citizens in the church, and midsingles are 3rd class. What, then, am I? Church attendance shouldn't be defined by your marital status. I guess I agree w/E.Packer on that one. A Ward is a geographical area, period. I'm still in the midsingles ward, and so I have a SP in a geographical area that has nothing to do with me. They started creating YSA stakes, but then they put midsingles wards in regular "host" stakes. I know someone who even got a stake calling in their fake stake as a midsingle sister.

I personally think the refocus of bishops on the youth is to try to solidify them at a younger age. Just like the change the earlier missionary age was more about keeping ppl in the church, and hoping they will get married younger when they return. Once sisters started to go on missions en masse, it created a slight gap of eligible sisters for returned missionaries to date and marry. Now there are record numbers of ppl like me. Obviously, that's not the only reason or even perhaps a major one, but it seems like if you don't get married by 30 it doesn't get easier. Get them active, going on missions, getting married young, and having kids. I don't think that's a bad thing to strive for. We are competing with all sorts of alternatives that are becoming ever more popular.

Do we feed the sheep or the lambs more? And, whatever you call an unmated sheep..

[Ciams]

The idea is a good one to have Bishops focus on the young men. Who knows how it will work out over the years. Right now, I'm not so sure.

From what I'm seeing is young men presidencies used to be the men who the YM would look up to and respect. Not always, but often the case. "This guy is cool, the YM will like him" kinda thing.

Problem 1
There isn't necessarily and even crossover from that category into bishopric material in most wards. So the bishopric and ward suffers if they replace the classic high priest bishopric member with a younger more physically active elder who might not be as spiritual.

Problem 2
The YM now have advisors who are spending hours in Bishopric and wards Council meetings and expected to spend the "real calling" time with the YM. Only, there's only so much time in the week. You want a meeting goer or someone to spend time with YM? Because right now, from what I see we traded young men presidencies who spent time with YM for meeting goers.

As a tangent when it comes to scouts, we've given up nature and activities outdoors because of the fact that it's not a worldwide church program AND has a ton of social baggage.

And replaced it circles apps and smart phones, that aren't also universal in their use among youth, AND also addicting and create a massive number of mental and social problems.

The problems aren't the church's fault as society is going down and every institution with it is too.

[Rubicon]

Yes, Bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood (AP) calling which can be filled by a High Priest when there isn't a direct descendant of Aaron present (has there ever been one?).

I asked my stake president how that would be determined, and he said, "Tribe of Levi in a patriarchal blessing." I believe personally that it would have to be determined by the First Presidency, and not just a patriarchal blessing stating Levi as the tribe (Aaron is a lot more narrow than the entire tribe of Levi). I really doubt he would immediately hand over a ward to someone waving a patriarchal blessing in his face. And, those bishops don't have to have counselors if they don't want to, per the D&C.

We've kinda morphed bishop into the president of the Ward, which in a sense is true, but only for AP duties. The Elders Quorum President (EQP) is an actual president which means he has the keys and presides over the Elders under the direction of the Stake President (SP).

All true. I was an EQP twice

Having been an EQP twice in singles wards, it's been an interesting experience. In theory, once someone becomes an Elder, they really are no longer under the bishop's authority. Reality is something else altogether. Having been an EQP in a singles ward, the Bishop acted more like my boss than a peer, which isn't how it's supposed to work.

I disagree. Although bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, when coupled with the presiding high priest of the ward part, even EQP are "under the bishop's authority" (except for quorum things where he answers to the stake president). When combined with the "common judge in Israel" part, it's inescapable that the bishop is the "boss." I think my stake president's interpretation that leading the ward falls under the EQ and RS, and the youth falls under the bishop is extreme and an outlier. I think plenty of other wards and stakes still are pretty traditional and conservative with this.

But I agree that making the AP the youth program does make the bishop seem like the youth pastor. And making the singles ward the singles program of the church is also extremely problematic, and I have long wished they would do away with them and have an actual singles program.

What would that look like? How would it be different from singles wards?

When my wife and I were first married, we had a stake conference with Elder Packer and Elder Maxwell at BYU. Elder Packer was asked about YSA wards, and he jokingly (but seriously) turned the time over to Elder Maxwell, saying that he'd better not say anything because he felt strongly that they shouldn't exist --- that YSAs should be fully a part of the traditional wards they reside in.

I personally think the refocus of bishops on the youth is to try to solidify them at a younger age. Just like the change the earlier missionary age was more about keeping ppl in the church, and hoping they will get married younger when they return. Once sisters started to go on missions en masse, it created a slight gap of eligible sisters for returned missionaries to date and marry. Now there are record numbers of ppl like me. Obviously, that's not the only reason or even perhaps a major one, but it seems like if you don't get married by 30 it doesn't get easier. Get them active, going on missions, getting married young, and having kids. I don't think that's a bad thing to strive for. We are competing with all sorts of alternatives that are becoming ever more popular.

Our hemorrhaging of youth and young adults is definitely driving almost all of the changes lately. I could do a separate thread about my disappointment with what the missionary program has become.

[Rubicon]

The problems aren't the church's fault as society is going down and every institution with it is too.

Where I fault the Church is that the Church and its people, as a whole, reflect society and its ills. Shouldn't the Church as a whole be better than that? Shouldn't active membership in the Church set us apart, so that we aren't mirroring social ills and trends? I believe that fully following the gospel as laid out through the years (but not some of the recent changes) really does produce people and families who stand out and have a special spirit about them. I don't think many of the recent changes will lead to this --- I think they will lead to Church members mirroring more and more the problems and challenges in society (low marriage rate, low birth rate, almost universal working mothers, incompetence, depression, anxiety, low spirituality, etc.).

[EmmaLee]

Yes, Bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood (AP) calling which can be filled by a High Priest when there isn't a direct descendant of Aaron present (has there ever been one?).

I asked my stake president how that would be determined, and he said, "Tribe of Levi in a patriarchal blessing." I believe personally that it would have to be determined by the First Presidency, and not just a patriarchal blessing stating Levi as the tribe (Aaron is a lot more narrow than the entire tribe of Levi). I really doubt he would immediately hand over a ward to someone waving a patriarchal blessing in his face. And, those bishops don't have to have counselors if they don't want to, per the D&C.

The son-in-law of a good friend of mine is of the tribe of Levi. After he got his patriarchal blessing as a teen, he was told by his stake president that he would need to show his blessing to the bishop of any ward he moved into. No further instructions were given (nor have been since then), and he has done that his whole life (he's in his late 40's now) in his various wards. He's never been called into a bishopric, which I think is interesting (and not necessarily in a good way). He's a really good guy - genuine and humble, very unassuming - a rare sort, for sure. He was also our son's seminary teacher and was much loved by the youth. First (and only) person I've ever personally known who is from the tribe of Levi.

[thaabit]

Having been an EQP twice in singles wards, it's been an interesting experience. In theory, once someone becomes an Elder, they really are no longer under the bishop's authority. Reality is something else altogether. Having been an EQP in a singles ward, the Bishop acted more like my boss than a peer, which isn't how it's supposed to work.

I disagree. Although bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, when coupled with the presiding high priest of the ward part, even EQP are "under the bishop's authority" (except for quorum things where he answers to the stake president). When combined with the "common judge in Israel" part, it's inescapable that the bishop is the "boss." I think my stake president's interpretation that leading the ward falls under the EQ and RS, and the youth falls under the bishop is extreme and an outlier. I think plenty of other wards and stakes still are pretty traditional and conservative with this.

I'm a bit confused how the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward. Where does that come from?

But I agree that making the AP the youth program does make the bishop seem like the youth pastor. And making the singles ward the singles program of the church is also extremely problematic, and I have long wished they would do away with them and have an actual singles program.

What would that look like? How would it be different from singles wards?

When my wife and I were first married, we had a stake conference with Elder Packer and Elder Maxwell at BYU. Elder Packer was asked about YSA wards, and he jokingly (but seriously) turned the time over to Elder Maxwell, saying that he'd better not say anything because he felt strongly that they shouldn't exist --- that YSAs should be fully a part of the traditional wards they reside in.

I could different organizations at a stake or higher level that sponsor activities, service projects, dances, etc
I could go into much more detail, but not in this thread.

I personally think the refocus of bishops on the youth is to try to solidify them at a younger age. Just like the change the earlier missionary age was more about keeping ppl in the church, and hoping they will get married younger when they return. Once sisters started to go on missions en masse, it created a slight gap of eligible sisters for returned missionaries to date and marry. Now there are record numbers of ppl like me. Obviously, that's not the only reason or even perhaps a major one, but it seems like if you don't get married by 30 it doesn't get easier. Get them active, going on missions, getting married young, and having kids. I don't think that's a bad thing to strive for. We are competing with all sorts of alternatives that are becoming ever more popular.

Our hemorrhaging of youth and young adults is definitely driving almost all of the changes lately. I could do a separate thread about my disappointment with what the missionary program has become.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the various programs such as missionaries and youth, both of which I'm not very aware of.

[Craig Johnson]

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?

Huh, what is the issue?
Don't be sad man, have some molasses cookies.

[randyps]

Two months ago I interviewed with the bishop of my new ward that I moved into, after 7 yrs of being inactive in my old ward, Im looking at this as a new start and new chapter in my life.

The bishop is around 36yrs old, works as a driver for Fedex supporting a wife and 3 kids. I am beginning down the path of repentance and he said that he is the one to come to for worthiness issues. The EQ is my direct point of leadership as bishops main responsibility is the youth.

"Less church more christ" is where I think the church is heading and the ramping up of temple construction every year is what will take us in that direction. More time doing temple work and less time quarrelling over visiting teaching assignments or ward parties that only burn members out.

[1775peasant]

Nibley’s…..Leaders & Managers speech from 1983 at BYU, imo…..mocked the constant “change” in which the Church was heading, and has certainty pegged out with RMN’s tenure…..

not having no where near the years of experience as most have in this thread, as i’m a 11 year now convert……yet, i was involved in “leadership” positions for 8 of those 11, having been released in Mar ‘20 after speaking my piece about the Church’s extreme response to the seasonal flu…….

in wards like our’s that have very few “youth” & even less young men….. the changes being questioned, are really awful to say the least….. we have a Bishop & his counselor’s that are so outa touch with the congregation, it’s just sad…. now, here’s mainly why, as since we where taken hostage by the “siege” of ‘20, our attendance has fallen to less than 1/3, we now average 35-45 per Sacrament meeting, with, the next hour leaving even fewer attending…..

the whole “ministering” program is a complete debacle, as i’m not aware of any going on unless there’s a major illness, and even in those cases, most have never heard a word from ANYONE other than our EQP…..

here, it’s as if the change to the Bishop’s duties & implementing “ministering assignments” released most of the ward from any responsibilities……and it’s been made known to me from friends in the HC, it’s not just our unit that’s operating in this manner….

i really think, that for less urban units, these changes where as some others have insinuated above…..whether intended or not, has moved anyone truly desiring Gospel principles/doctrines/discussions, to their own homes….as there has been NO effort made to reignite anything resembling pre-RMN, pre-Co_id Gospel enthusiasm, here at least? our Stake Conf’s attendance mirror the loss of Sacrament attendance almost to a “T”……

perhaps i’m the anomaly? but i think it’s really sad how divided this area has become within our supposedly, “Church family”…….i know this because i’ve been attending several other units outside my stake over the past 6 months just to see what’s going on elsewhere, as i live in the corner of where 3 Stakes meet……

[1775peasant]

i’ll add, 1 other unit i visited had 7 investigators attend that Sacrament meeting…..but, unbeknownst to me……they also where having a “Gospel Principles” class….,that Building’s Spirit was electrifying!

my Ward has had 1 real investigator since the siege hit, they came several times & requested to be Baptized, to which the Bishop denied, saying they needed more time……they have yet to return

[BroJones]

A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?

Is the Bishop still responsible for "membership councils," or do these now go to the Stake Presidency?

Is the Bishop still responsible for distribution of Fast offering funds, and counseling with members making such requests?

[Rubicon]

Is the Bishop still responsible for "membership councils," or do these now go to the Stake Presidency?

Is the Bishop still responsible for distribution of Fast offering funds, and counseling with members making such requests?

Bishops are still responsible for approving use of fast offering funds, but much of the counseling about this has been delegated out to RS and EQ presidencies. Mileage in individual wards will vary, but this is what the counsel has been --- to lighten the bishops' loads and to shoulder more of that among the auxiliaries.

The new handbook changes make it so that very few disciplinary councils will take place at the ward level. Any endowed people are now at the stake level, and the high council has largely been eliminated from participating in that process (despite D&C 108). Stake presidents can choose to include the high council if they feel that the question is difficult enough to warrant that, but the effect is going to be mostly just the stake presidency.