Elders and High Priests
When and how did elders quorum become a group of 20/30 somethings and high priests group become a group of everyone else?
I was having my first PPI as elders quorum president with my bishop last night, and we were discussing all the older members of our ward who are assigned to elders quorum in the computer. They are not active and hold the priesthood office of elder, so the computer assigns them to our quorum. The oldest is 92.
At first, we discussed how some of them need to be assigned to the high priests, such as those in their 80s and 90s. As we started to get toward those in their 40s and 50s, however, things started to become less clear cut.
So we chatted some more about it. At the end we had determined that the tendency to send older brethren to high priests group based on age has developed some problems. It destroys quorum unity, it makes it difficult to staff quorum positions, it removes training opportunities for new home teachers, etc.
We concluded that we would leave things as they are now (all those brethren remaining in elders quorum) and that the bishop would discuss it in bishopric meeting and PEC.
After the meeting, I gained a different perspective on the two groups. I really think that high priests group should be reserved for past bishopric members, high councilmen, stake presidency members, etc and for those who are more spiritually mature. Elders quorum is for people who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level.
If the Relief Society is not split based on age, why should the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums be?
Popularity: 9% [?]
[More Help]
Excellent point! I’d love to see our Elders Quorum strengthened by the addition of some of the more mature Elders that are currently attending the High Priests Group. Unfortunately, in my current ward, that would mean the end of a viable home teaching High Priests Group. Maybe we should just consolidate into a Melchizedek Priesthood Group as some smaller units do.
1 Jun 2005 @ 11:55 | Permalink
I’m all for the joined Melkizekek Priesthood group. Interestingly, this last year or so, the Stake has put the hammer down: No more graduating to be a high priest. Back in the day, when you got a certian age, they would kick you out of the EQ and ordain you. No longer. The do give older elders an option to attend with the HPs if they want.
1 Jun 2005 @ 12:05 | Permalink
In our stake, all prospective elders (with the possible exception of those still young enough to go on missions) were recently assigned to the High Priests quorum. We were told this was done on instruction from Salt Lake.
When I was EQ president, my position was that nobody should be made a High Priest unless they were being called to a position that required that office. My wishes were generally respected in that regard (to the dismay of some of the older brethren).
I tend to agree with pate’s suggestion that we have a single MP group at the ward level. Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, and High Councilors would be the only men not under the jurisdiction of the group’s presidency.
1 Jun 2005 @ 12:10 | Permalink
“In our stake, all prospective elders (with the possible exception of those still young enough to go on missions) were recently assigned to the High Priests quorum. We were told this was done on instruction from Salt Lake.”
Actually, the instruction was that prospective elders were to be home taught by high priests. They would still be assigned as home teaching companions (where appropriate) with elders and would attend elders quorum on Sundays.
1 Jun 2005 @ 13:17 | Permalink
gee you know I have been a member of this church almost 27 years and it still amazes me that to this date this is NOT the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.. at least not the same one that was originally started…a church that is ONE with each other.. ONE that follows the SAME rules and policies for ALL. Your dad was told 4 months ago that because he is now over 50 he has to go to HP. He has never been a Bishop or held a Stake position where he had to be a HP and yet because of his age he gets sent there. And yet on the other hand there is another male who also is in HP that is in his mid 30th’s has a young family, has also never held a position of being in the Stake or Bishopric and yet here he is in HP!!
Last week we had the family of one of our previous sister missionaries here visiting from SLC and they all came for dinner. He is almost 60 and is still in EQ. We had been talking about this same thing and he said in his ward they keep men in EQ if there aren’t enough priesthood holders to get all the HT done!!! Our HT here just got changed last month. We now have an inactive Elder home teaching us with his 12 year old son as his regular companion. Last year we had an Elder with his 8 year old son home teaching us.
Explain to me again how we are a unified church with one set of rules for all members cause I seem to be missing that concept
1 Jun 2005 @ 22:16 | Permalink
Age, except in rare situations, is not a criterion for determining which quorum a priesthood holder attends. Those members who have been ordained an elder should attend the elders’ quorum. Those members who have been ordained a high priest should attend the high priests’ group. It is fairly straight forward. The question is which quorum should a seventy attend?
Roger
2 Jun 2005 @ 10:17 | Permalink
Roger,
Your use of the word “should” presupposes that you know better than the leaders who set policies. Throughout the entire Utah North Area at least, where the HP quorum is going to be composed largely of older men (and especially in a stake like mine, which has a wide age gap between the longtime residents and the crop of younger families), the priesthood leadership is quite content to let older elders meet with the high priests.
I’m not saying it’s the way it *should* be, but I also wouldn’t feel it my responsibility to come out so boldly and say that it *shouldn’t* be that way.
2 Jun 2005 @ 20:50 | Permalink
I myself am 31 and was asked by the Bishop to begin attending HP this coming Sunday. I am unsure of why this is. Is it perhaps because the Bishop is planning on calling me to a stake position that would require me to be a HP? Has anyone heard of this occuring? Naturally, I am happy in either quorum, and love the brethren in both…just curious as I am now the youngest man in HP in my Ward (and feeling slightly out of place)! Granted, I live in a very old area, and most of the members are fairly elderly. I’m sure they will all be wondering what on earth I’m doing there as well!
8 Jun 2005 @ 15:46 | Permalink
Wow. I’m the same age as you Jesse, and somehow I doubt I’ll ever be asked to attend high priests group any time soon.
Quite interesting.
I wonder if others have gone through the same thing.
8 Jun 2005 @ 15:55 | Permalink
why has noone pointed out that the requirements are already clearly pointed out in scripture? Advancement should be based on neither merit nor calling requirements nor age nor maturity. It should be based on the presiding authority’s perception that an elder meets the requirements in Alma 13.
7 Jul 2005 @ 11:06 | Permalink
I agree that spiritual maturity should be a criterion for advancement.
When Gospel discussion has to held at the level of a convert for most to understand, there is no growth and development.
As it is now, the majority of High Priests seem to enjoy working among the dead.
1 Jun 2005 @ 22:18 | Permalink
You mean the concept that people are imperfect individuals, and variation in local policy, though discouraged and reined in by the Brethren, will still happen despite our best efforts? Yeah, you seem to be missing that concept.
2 Jun 2005 @ 09:56 | Permalink
The First Presidency and the Twelve instituted a policy of inviting older men, who might feel more comfortable meeting with a group of similarly aged men, to attend the High Priest group on Sundays, irrespective of the Priesthood office they hold. As far as I know they didn’t institute a policy of compelling them to do so.
14 Mar 2006 @ 12:49 | Permalink
I agree that perhaps the groups should be united. My husband was called to his first Bishopric at age 27. And yes, he is by far the most spiritual man in my age group I have met to date, and I could certainly see why he was called (over and over and over). BUT He continues to this day to be the youngest man in any High Priests Quorum he has ever attended. That’s gotta suck.
K.
14 Mar 2006 @ 13:14 | Permalink
I found the responses from the younger generation to be quite naive. The reality is that there is a heirarchy in the church. If you are an Elder and you attend the High Priest Quorum, you are excluded from HP activities except by special invitation. For example, when the HP quorum is reorganized, the Elders that attend HP are not allowed to sustain the new leaders. During Stake Conference – only High Priests are allowed to sustain a new High Priest. Elders cannot attend Stake High Priest meetings, Elders who attend HP meetings are nothing more than an invited guest. Often, those who hold the office of Elder are even excluded from High Priest Socials. I read with interest the degrading comments that were made about 85 and 90 year old men who are still Elders. I would take their advice over any 27 year old who was called to the Bishopric. Your Church calling does not make you a spiritual giant. The reality is that the LDS Church is for families with young children. Where are the men that raised you and taught you the scriptures and took you on Boy Scout outings? Unless they were made a High Priest, the odds are fairly high they are now the ones condsidered less active. The Church has little need for older members. This is one of those little secrets the leadership does not like to acknowledge. Much like 1/3 of the Church is single but where are they? They do not attend meetings but they are on your and my Ward’s rosters. Being a High Priest has very little to do with worthiness, it has to more to do about power and keeping that power in the hands of a small elite group of men. If you are asked to attend the High Priest meeting on Sunday, unless you are made a High Priest then, do yourself a favor and turn it down, unless you want to become the 90 year old man that was made fun of in one of the previous blogs. Be the 90 year old man that attends Elders Quorum and be a real man that is not hidden away in the high council room. Make the leaders acknowledge you are still alive and can do more than search out dead ancestors names.
I expect many of you who will read this blog expect that I am an apostate. But Im not, I fullfilled an honorable mission, married in the Temple, attend Church and am considered actived. I just refuse to be stuck away in the High Council room
19 Mar 2006 @ 22:53 | Permalink
“Be the 90 year old man that attends Elders Quorum and be a real man that is not hidden away in the high council room.”
Amen.
20 Mar 2006 @ 07:00 | Permalink
Some may be shocked to hear me say this, but McConkie got some things right. Between the offices of the MP we currently employ, Elder, HP and apostle, there is no advancement in the priesthood. Those are different offices and all necessary to runing the church. One is not greater or more important than another. To say otherwise would be like your brain saying it has no need for the heart or limbs. Given many of the attitudes expressed here, it’s no wonder we lose “less useful” members. Bill makes very valid points. When you look at the typical active Joe/Molly Mormon, it’s no wonder those that don’t fit the mold don’t feel comfortable with us.
I add that I have seen some men made HP because the HP quorum had an assignment for them. So there other good reasons for someone becoming a HP than those cited here. In any event, it’s not our place to judge.
20 Mar 2006 @ 08:02 | Permalink
Bill, I think much of what you’ve said here is very valuable. Older members of the Church have a great deal to offer, and many may be underutilized. I do, however, have a problem with something else you said:
“Being a High Priest has very little to do with worthiness, it has to more to do about power and keeping that power in the hands of a small elite group of men.”
I understand you to be saying that Priesthood ordinations are mere man-made devices for consolidating power. I think anyone is free to believe that. Anyone is also free to proclaim it openly, by publishing articles, speaking on street corners, or marching with signs and handing out tracts just outside the gates of Temple Square. You’re also free to do the same thing in a way that gives you an even wider audience, by preaching such beliefs on the World-wide Web.
I don’t think, however, that preaching that belief is consistent with your protestations of nonapostasy. You tell us you’re not an apostate because you have “checked the boxes” of a mission, temple marriage, church attendance, and being “considered active.” I don’t believe checking those boxes is what determines whether one is in a state of apostasy or not. What determines that is whether a person is choosing to teach and preach that the Church, its teachings or its authority, are false. Here, I believe you’ve done that, by preaching that the High Priesthood is only a power-grabbing mechanism controlled by a power-hungry elite.
20 Mar 2006 @ 08:12 | Permalink
Bill, you have a perfect right to believe what you believe and to preach what you preach. But you ARE preaching against the Church, and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise. You are preaching that the First Presidency is “not right” when they instruct bishops to invite (not compel) older Elders to attend High Priest groups. You are preaching that by doing so, the First Presidency has brought “evil among us.” You are preaching that ordination to the office of High Priest is “about power and keeping that power in the hands of a small elite group of men.” You are preaching that the duties of certain Melchizedek Priesthood callings are “perks” for a privileged elite. You are teaching that the Lord’s own organization of his Priesthood into quorums “is not righteous and needs to be done away with.” So although you have every right to preach these views, you shouldn’t protest that you’re not preaching against the Church, its teachings, its Priesthood, and its leaders.
One ironic thing about this is that the instruction to bishops is to invite these men to attend whichever quorum will make them the most comfortable, and you’re characterizing it as a forced exile. (See Ezra Taft Benson, “A Call to the Priesthood:
‘Feed My Sheep’,” Priesthood Session, General Conference, October 1983.)
21 Mar 2006 @ 08:15 | Permalink
Well, no surprise that I think Bill makes some good points. How is the church to improve if members are to remain silent about their concerns? The one about only current and former Bishops, BPs and SPs being temple tour guides is a theater of the absurd, as is much of modern Mormonism. Dumping that task on the already most burdened volunteers in the church is ridiculous. What the heck were the full time missionaries assigned? Shouldn’t there have been female tour guides too?
21 Mar 2006 @ 08:38 | Permalink
Itbugaf and Kris – I find it interesting that you are so eager and willing to attack my testimony and accuse me of not following the counsel of the brethren. Kris – Are you not the one that started this blog and are these not your words? “I really think that high priests group should be reserved for past bishopric members, high councilmen, stake presidency members, etc and for those who have spiritually matured. Elders quorum is for people who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level.
If the Relief Society is not split based on age, why should the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums be?”
Do you really believe those members who attend Elders quorum are struggling with the basics? Do you really believe that only those men who have been called to positions of leadership are spiritual? You claim to be an Elders Quorum President and this is what you think of those you preside over. I pitty your Ward if you should ever become their Bishop.
It sounds as though you already consider yourself one of the elite or hopefully soon to be.
Do you really believe that all those in high leadership positions are righteous? How naive can you be? I personally had a Bishop who had a long love affair while he presided over a large Ward. I’m sure all of his decisions were righteous. I also worked with a member of the church that holds a high Stake calling that when he left the company I work for, the IT guys started calling him PORNO KING due to all the filthy PORN he had downloaded onto his computer. I’m sure he makes nothing but righteous decisions because he is a holds a Stake Position of Authority.
This is a fact – There is nothing the Church can or will do to the Porno King until he confesses his sins and do you really think he would do something like that?
I find your remarks insulting to even suggest that a person’s personal relationship with God depends upon their Church calling. I believe that if you would read the New Testament you would see yourselves as the very people Jesus talked about. They were the leaders over the Jews. They attacked Jesus for pointing out their errors, what are trying to do to me?
There is no simple answer to solve all of the issues that evolve as men age. The reality is that a Bishopric last 5 years and there are very few slots available for all the active men to serve and become High Priest due to a Church calling. In a 20 year span you might have 5 to 8 men (no more than 12) called to serve in a Bishopric that are not already a High Priest.
It is an ugly fact that if you are assigned to the High Priest Quorum and you are not a High Priest, you are treated as second class.
Why should the office of High Priest be only avaiable to select men? If you are a worthy male and you have done your duty, why should you be denied rights and priveleges?
The answer is simple – Perks. Call me whatever you like but the truth is the truth.
Steve M – I appreciate your remarks – it takes courage to stand up to injustice no matter what form it takes.
21 Mar 2006 @ 09:37 | Permalink
First of all Bill, I am not the owner of this site and I am a woman. Get your facts straight.
Secondly, I never said that being called to a High Priest was because of righteousness. I simply stated that my husband would sure like a few more people his age in High Priests Group as he is the youngest by far.
Apparently you cannot read.
I in no way think being a High Priest is a “perk” of the church. Yes, the church is made up of many men and women who have and will continue to fail. The church also is made up of righteous members who are trying their best to live the gospel.
Spare me your melodrama, I stand by my statement that I find you ignorant.
K.
21 Mar 2006 @ 10:03 | Permalink
Bill, your comment was purportedly addressed to me as well as Kris, but I don’t see anything in the comment that relates to what I’ve said in my comments. If there is something you think relates to my own statements, please point it out and I’ll do my best to answer.
21 Mar 2006 @ 11:02 | Permalink
Steve EM: I’m sure it’s not difficult to criticize the decision to use those with Priesthood keys as tour guides. It also wasn’t difficult to criticize Jesus for allowing a woman to squander costly ointment by pouring it on his feet. One apostle was highly critical of this action.
But by making this criticism, you must presume that you know better than those who made the decision. You must believe that there are no important reasons for the decision that you don’t and/or can’t know about. You must think that your knowledge and judgment are superior to theirs. That’s the opposite of following Priesthood authority, the opposite of having a testimony of a Prophet, and in my opinion, is the essential element of apostasy.
21 Mar 2006 @ 11:13 | Permalink
Bill
This is a group blog with the following contributors:
Kim was the originator and also the author of this post. Kris is a commentor here, not an owner. Perhaps you mistook Kim for Kris. Also, Kim is a man, Kris is a woman.
21 Mar 2006 @ 11:15 | Permalink
Bill, you’ve offered examples of Priesthood leaders who commit sins. Are you arguing that because this is true, we should not follow Church leaders? I’m not sure what your argument is. I think you’re saying that the Church and the High Priesthood are corrupt, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Also, can you see what I’m really getting at in my previous comments? I’m not saying you have to stop speaking against the Church. I’m telling you that as you continue to speak against the Church in this way, you’re not making sense if you simultaneously claim not to be committing apostasy against the Church. You say that what you’re doing is standing up against evil and injustice, but that is beside the question of whether what you’re doing is apostasy. Even if an apostate action is good or courageous, it’s still an apostate action.
On the one hand, you keep pointing out why the Church is a corrupt, evil system of power consolidation and perks for the elite, and at the same time you seem very concerned about being identified as one who stands against it.
21 Mar 2006 @ 12:37 | Permalink
…that is to say, desirous not to be identified as one who stands against it.
21 Mar 2006 @ 12:38 | Permalink
Since you refuse to explain or discuss any of these things–all of which were raised by you–I’ll move on to some of your other statements:
Q: “why should only Bishops and Stake Presidents be High Priest?”
A: They shouldn’t be. Anyone who is called to fulfill a calling that requires the office of High Priest should be ordained a High Priest.
Q: “Why do older Elders of the Church need to attend High Priest Quorum?”
A: They may or may not need to. But because the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are deeply concerned with making them feel welcome and comfortable at church, they have instructed local leaders to INVITE them to attend with the High Priests if they would feel more comfortable doing so.
Q: “Why are the older Elders treated with such disrepect by those who are High Priest?”
A: In all my years as an Elder and as a High Priest, I have never seen anyone treated with disrespect for being an older Elder–not by High Priests, not by Elders, not by anyone else. If you have seen such behavior, it doesn’t mean that such behavior is practiced widely or endorsed by the Church’s leaders.
Q: “Why should High Priest be given Perks that the regular members of the Church are denied?”
A: I still don’t know what you mean by “perks,” and so far, you have refused to explain. At one time you seem to be saying that the office of High Priest is itself a perk, and then you seem to say that the office is something that confers perks. You also say that there’s an “elite” group that apparently tries to keep itself above others by ordaining more members to its ranks. But I don’t know what the perks are. If you’re referring to responsibilities, I would decline to call those “perks.” The office is conferred on those who are being called to responsibilities that require it. To carry out those responsibilities, they need to hold the requisite office. But you haven’t shown, or even explained, what “perks” are attached to the office or to its responsibilities.
21 Mar 2006 @ 17:38 | Permalink
This blog started about 9 1/2 months and in the last 2 days it has more than doubled the number of entries on it. There seems to be very strong feelings on this topic.
21 Mar 2006 @ 20:22 | Permalink
This blog started nearly three years ago (July 2003).
Or are you referring to this specific post?
21 Mar 2006 @ 21:20 | Permalink
I’ll continue addressing some of Bill’s comments:
Bill: “I found the responses from the younger generation to be quite naive.”
Me: Which responses are from “the younger generation”? How have you managed to divine the ages of those who are posting? Are you referring only to comments 10 and 11?
Bill: “For example, when the HP quorum is reorganized, the Elders that attend HP are not allowed to sustain the new leaders.”
Me: Obviously, the members of one quorum don’t vote on positions in another quorum. Your beef is with the way the Priesthood is organized into quorums. That’s a complaint against the Doctrine & Covenants, not against the local leaders who implement its instructions.
Bill: “Elders who attend HP meetings are nothing more than an invited guest.”
Me: Of course they are, since they’re not members of the quorum. But because the Church’s leaders feel so deeply that older men should be made to feel comfortable, they invite them to be guests of their peers in age. I fail to see what is wrong or undignified about being an invited guest. Generally, being treated as a guest is being treated with honor.
Bill: “I read with interest the degrading comments that were made about 85 and 90 year old men who are still Elders.”
Me: I tried to read them with interest, too, but I can’t find any. Where are they? Who made them?
Bill: “I would take their advice over any 27 year old who was called to the Bishopric.”
Me: Then do so. What does this have to do with ordination to the office of High Priest?
Bill: “Your Church calling does not make you a spiritual giant.”
Me: True. But your calling does two things: 1. Gives you an opportunity to magnify it and either become or continue to be a “spiritual giant.” 2. Requires ordination to the requisite Priesthood office.
Bill: “…the 90 year old man that was made fun of in one of the previous blogs.”
Me: Where was a 90-year-old man being made fun of? I can’t see anyone making fun of a 90-year-old man. In fact, the only mention at all of a 90-year-old man was in Kim’s original post, where he mentioned that his Elders Quorum has a member who is 92 years of age. Where’s the mockery? Who’s making fun of him?
Bill: “Make the leaders acknowledge you are still alive and can do more than search out dead ancestors names.”
Me: Is there something low, wrong, or undignified about doing the work necessary for temple ordinances? Do you believe those ordinances are unimportant?
Bill: “There is nothing quite so painful as to realize you have lived a righteous life and yet you are excluded from the club…”
Me: What “club” are you talking about? What are the benefits of club membership?
Bill: “Should only the person who stands on the tallest step be allowed to pray?”
Me: Obviously not. Has it escaped your notice that members of all levels of Priesthood, including no Priesthood, offer prayers at church?
Bill: “we have men in power today under the guise of religion doing that in this day and age.”
Me: Who are these evil men disguising their greed and power lust as religion? The First Presidency that gave the instructions about assigning older Elders to the High Priests? The local leaders who faithfully follow their instructions? Or is it Joseph Smith, who gave the revelations that organized the Melchizedek Priesthood into more than one quorum?
Bill: “We teach that there is no difference between the two branches of the Priesthood yet one branch gets the perks the other is denied.”
Me: I have a feeling you’re not going to answer this, since you’ve already been asked several times, but I’ll ask anyway–what perks? I don’t see High Priests getting anything fun or enjoyable that Elders aren’t getting.
Bill: “Everyone is loved not just the Bishops and Stake Presidents. Not just the young families with 4 kids under the age of 5. God loves us all and he wants all of us to attend Church and Worship him.”
Me: I agree wholeheartedly. So does the First Presidency. In fact, they’re so concerned about having all of us attend church and worship, that they’ve given special instructions designed to make older members of the Elders Quorum as comfortable as possible at church.
Bill: “Seperating [sic] men one from another based upon a calling is not righteous and needs to be done away with… This needs to stop. It is wrong.”
Me: I’m sorry you believe that the First Presidency, who gave this instruction, and the local leaders who follow them, are acting unrighteously. I believe otherwise. I still can’t fathom how you say their instructions are unrighteous while simultaneously warning us not to consider you apostate.
Bill: “They are not second class members because they were never a Bishop.”
Me: You’re right. Of course, being ordained to the holy office of Elder in the Priesthood of Melchizedek is not being treated as a second-class member.
Bill: “Do you really believe that only those men who have been called to positions of leadership are spiritual?”
Me: Kim hasn’t said that anywhere, and as far as I know, he doesn’t believe that. Neither do I.
Bill: “I personally had a Bishop who had a long love affair while he presided over a large Ward…I also worked with a member of the church that holds a high Stake calling that [downloaded pornography to a computer].”
Me: Yes. I also know of a member of the Quorum of the Twelve who betrayed the Son of God to his enemies. I wonder if Jesus was being unrighteous when he chose and ordained that Apostle? Leaders don’t lose their agency when they are ordained. This doesn’t mean their ordination is wrong.
Bill: “There is nothing the Church can or will do to the Porno King until he confesses his sins…”
Me: Actually, he can be subject to a disciplinary council whether he chooses to admit his wrongs or not. If you believe the man needs to be disciplined, there are leaders with keys over him, to whom you can report your concerns.
Bill: “…if you would read the New Testament you would see yourselves as the very people Jesus talked about. They were the leaders over the Jews. They attacked Jesus for pointing out their errors…”
Me: If you would read the New Testament you would see that when Jesus spoke against the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, he didn’t simultaneously insist on being identified as a faithful member of their group. He was frank about standing against them. You, on the other hand, speak against what you describe as an evil church, and then refuse to be identified as one who stands against it.
Bill: “It is an ugly fact that if you are assigned to the High Priest Quorum and you are not a High Priest, you are treated as second class.”
Me: In the whole of my experience, that’s an ugly distortion, not an ugly truth. If you really do see someone being treated with disrespect, then point it out to the leaders in charge. Their objective is to treat all members with respect–even as honored guests. Telling the leaders about the problem might be a better choice than characterizing them as a power-grabbing elite.
Bill: “Why should the office of High Priest be only avaiable to select men? If you are a worthy male and you have done your duty, why should you be denied rights and priveleges?”
Me: What are the rights and privileges you desire but can’t have as an elder?
22 Mar 2006 @ 18:51 | Permalink
“[The] Church’s leaders feel so deeply that older men should be made to feel comfortable, [so] they invite them to be guests of their peers in age.”
Which is actually the reason for my post. It’s also kind of odd. After all, women are not segregated by age. Why should Melchizedek Priesthood holders be?
22 Mar 2006 @ 19:00 | Permalink
So are you saying women are the ones who are shortchanged? That there should be more concern about putting the women into comfortable groups?
As for why the Priesthood and the Relief Society aren’t organized the same, all I know is that the Lord revealed an organization of quorums in the Priesthood and didn’t reveal an organization of quorums in the Relief Society.
22 Mar 2006 @ 19:03 | Permalink
It might be interesting to ask why the younger High Priests aren’t invited to meet with the Elders.
But I don’t think it would be very profitable, because there’s no good answer except that the Brethren haven’t given any instruction to do so.
22 Mar 2006 @ 19:05 | Permalink
Let me just expand a little on my previous comment (because you may not have enough of my thoughts yet ;) )
The tendency for Elders to be younger and High Priests to be older (with many exceptions to both) is just a natural function of how the Priesthood works. The first ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood is to the office of Elder. There may have been exceptions, but they are few. It’s nearly always after one has been and Elder for a while that one may be called to a position requiring the office of High Priest. Since one comes before the other, the age “division” happens naturally.
I wonder if those who so vociferously condemn this “division” are even more upset about the system of ordaining Deacons, Teachers and Priests with specific age requirements?
22 Mar 2006 @ 19:48 | Permalink
No, I am saying that if the women aren’t segregated by age, neither should the men.
But the organisation he revealed was not based on age. It was based on office held.
In the wards I have been in they have. I don’t think they should. I think elders should meet in elders quorum and high priests should meet in high priests group, regardless of age.
22 Mar 2006 @ 22:45 | Permalink
In other words, the comparison to the Relief Society is a false comparison, because the Relief Society isn’t divided into quorums. The Melchizedek Priesthood is divided into quorums, by revelation, and the natural functioning of the duties of those quorums causes a greater concentration of younger men in the Elders and older men in the High Priests. Since that age division happens naturally, it may cause some older Elders to feel less comfortable in their own quorum than they might feel with the High Priests. Since, as Bill points out, there is a high inactivity rate among such men, the Brethren are doing something to try to make them comfortable, so they’ll keep coming and receiving the blessings of Church attendance.
23 Mar 2006 @ 09:15 | Permalink
I have to agree with Ltbugaf on this issue of divisions among the offices of the MP. It mattereth not the age of the individual; the quorum they attend for instruction is determined by the office they were ordained to.
I also find no condescending attitude in inviting older men to attend HP group (it’s not a quorum, BTW) if that is where they are more comfortable. They are not obligated to go.
In my last ward, there was a man in his retirement years attending EQ on a regular basis because he was a seventy. (In my convert naivete, I searched back issues of conference Ensigns for him thinking: seventy = GA. Now I know better.) :-D
I also know of a branch that benefitted from a combined MP meeting on Sunday. However, in most wards with more than 20-40 members attending on Sundays a combined MP would be unwieldly for instruction and administration, IMHO.
I’m still waiting to hear what perks those HP’s have that we Elders are missing out on …
23 Mar 2006 @ 14:34 | Permalink
Polly, I’m not sure you ARE agreeing with me. You say, “the quorum they attend for instruction is determined by the office they were ordained to.” I’m saying that there’s nothing wrong with the First Presidency’s instruction to local Priesthood leaders. The instruction is that, if an older Elder would feel more comfortable meeting with the High Priests (who naturally tend to be an older group) then he should be invited to do so–which means that sometimes the quorum they attend for instruction is NOT determined by the office they were ordained to.
23 Mar 2006 @ 14:55 | Permalink
ltbugaf, I’m pretty sure that I AM agreeing with you. I just may not be making myself clear. :-)
The determination of where a priesthood holder attends meetings is based on his office. I’m pretty sure we agree on that. Otherwise, there wouldn’t need to be a policy instructing Bishops to prayerfully consider which of their Melchizedek Priesthood holders would benefit from participating in High Priest Group rather than Elder’s Quorum, and extend such invitations.
The policy you mention is not a directive to invite all men over a certain age to attend HP; rather it is a policy for Bishops, Elder’s Quorum Presidents, and High Priest Group Leaders to prayerfully consider the needs of individual Melchizedek Priesthood holders, and reach out to those who would benefit from an invitation to participate in High Priest Group more than attending Elder’s Quorum. I belive we agree on that, also.
I believe you misunderstood me when I said that the quorum for instruction is determined by their office is the only determination. I did not state that and it was a mischaracterization of my statement to imply that my statement was an absolute. I agreed that the First Presidency’s direction to invite older Elder’s to participate in High Priest is a useful policy.
Again, it doesn’t matter the age (otherwise it would have specified an age limit), it is up to each Bishop to extend the invitation — but, until the invitation is extended, the older Elder is supposed to attend his Sunday meeting with his Quorum (hence, “the quorum they attend for instruction is determined by the office they were ordained to”)
In the end, I say along with you “that there’s nothing wrong with the First Presidency’s instruction to local Priesthood leaders” pertaining to inviting older Elders to attend High Priests if they would be more comfortable, and I reiterate that I don’t find it condescending to do so, either.
24 Mar 2006 @ 10:07 | Permalink
Gotcha. OK, I agree that we agree. :)
24 Mar 2006 @ 10:27 | Permalink
I have been lurking on this site for some time. I feel the need to express the fact that no one can make you miserable except yourself. Obviously Bill has chosen to only see the negative, or what he perceives to be negative that has to do with High Priests “versus” the Elders. Bill also refuses to go to his Bishop and discuss this matter. What I see is a hardened heart that wants to blame others for his own part in making himself miserable.
Jonah Peterson
-currently a 73 year old Elder in the church (because I joined the church only 5 years ago) who strives to see the positive and who also attends Elders Quorum and quite enjoys the company and coversation with the younger crowd, but maybe that’s just me.
25 Mar 2006 @ 13:33 | Permalink
Johnah – I’m glad to hear that you are no longer a lurker and that you joined the Church. You have not yet experienced the dilema Elders face when they begin to attend the High Priest Group. I expect that during the 5 years you have been a member, there have been changes to the Elder’s Quorum Presidency and that the members of the Elders Quorum (including you) raised their hand to sustain the new members of the Presidency. If you attended the High President Group and there is a change in the Leadership, you being an Elder would not be allowed to raise your hand to sustain the new leadership. When there is a Stake High Priest meeting, you being an Elder would not be invited to the Stake Wide meeting for High Priest. The rest of your Group however would be invited. When there is a High Priest social (fancy word for a party) as an Elder you might be allowed to attend as a guest only. Might be allowed is the word here. Not because you are a member of the group. An elder who attends High Priest during Priesthood meeting, is really there more as a charity case than being a part of the group. As long as you are attending Elders Quorum, you are as much a part of the group as ayone else, perhaps older and more wiser but not resricted.
What I am looking to hear from is Elders who attend with the High Priest Group and how do you handle the second class treatment. A High Priest cannot answer because they would not have the experience. An Elder that attends Elder’s Quorum cannot answer for the same reason. A woman has nothing to compare it to. An 18 year old woman for example can grow into the RS group as she grows older but a man does not grow into the group as he gets older unless he is ordained a HP.
If there is an Elder that attends High Priest Group and you are say 50 years old – how do you handle knowing that you might live another 40 years or so and you are going to be treated different for the next forty years just because you were never ordained to be a HP?
I would also like to hear from Elders who are over 50 and how you deal with the silly thngs 25 year olds talk about. How are you going to deal with hearing their immuture remarks week after week for the next 40 years.
For those of you who seem to think the solution to all of life’s problems is to talk to the Bishop, you do not understand the problem. Unless you are a HP, you are treated as second class the rest of your life. If you do not understand the concept of being treated second class than you are not an Elder that attends HP. It is that simple. There is nothing a Bishop can do except approve you to be a High Prist to change the problem. Unlikely to happen since the HP group really needs to stay small so control of the Ward stays in the hands of a few men. Same thing on a Stake level. Often when you have a new Bishop, he comes from the High Council. the Bishop that is released goes into the High Council. When an Ex Stake President moves to a new Stake, he often becomes a High Councilor or a Bishop or some other high position within months of the move. When an older Elder moves to a new Ward or Stake, he has to prove to the new Bishop over time that he is faithful. It does not matter that the older Elder has attended his whole life. Is there a difference between callings – you bet there is. Are there Perks to being a Stake President for the rest of your life – of course there are. Do Bishops and SP’s spend a lot of their time doing their Church callings? Yes but so do other members. Ward/Stake Clerks, RS & Primary Presidents and others.
If you have any experience with being an Elder and are willing to share your thoughts and experiences, please share them. I’m sure there are many brethren that feel alone and leave the Church for these reasons. If you have become less active, please share those experiences also. Today I was told that life is too short and to take bad experiences out of your life and do the things that bring you joy and hapiness. For the less active – Are you happier to not be so involved? I really would prefer to hear for those you have become less active due to the Elder vs High Priest dilema. If there are any, perhaps it is just me but I doubt it.
As a side note – I find it very interesting that those who claim to be righteous are the ones who verbally attack and insult the most. Are they really as rightous as they claim? What do you think?
25 Mar 2006 @ 23:20 | Permalink
“Johnah – I’m glad to hear that you are no longer a lurker and that you joined the Church”
Thank you.
“You have not yet experienced the dilema Elders face when they begin to attend the High Priest Group”
Yes, I do not attend High Priests group. I attend Elder’s Quorum because I was ordained an Elder in the Melchezidek Prieshood.
“I expect that during the 5 years you have been a member, there have been changes to the Elder’s Quorum Presidency and that the members of the Elders Quorum (including you) raised their hand to sustain the new members of the Presidency”
Yes.
“If you attended the High President Group”
I am not sure what a High President Group is, I am assuming you mean High Priests Group.
“and there is a change in the Leadership, you being an Elder would not be allowed to raise your hand to sustain the new leadership. When there is a Stake High Priest meeting, you being an Elder would not be invited to the Stake Wide meeting for High Priest”
Yes, that is because I am not a High Priest. Just like when the Elders Quorum changes and ONLY the Elders can sustain the new presidency. OR when you are in another ward and there are new callings. Because you are not a member of that ward you do not sustain those callings.
“The rest of your Group however would be invited. When there is a High Priest social (fancy word for a party) as an Elder you might be allowed to attend as a guest only. Might be allowed is the word here. Not because you are a member of the group”
Actually is my ward and the ward I was baptised into (different cities and provinces), the High Priests and Elders quorum had joint activities exclusively. Perhaps this is different than other wards…anyone else have a comment to this?
“An elder who attends High Priest during Priesthood meeting, is really there more as a charity case than being a part of the group. As long as you are attending Elders Quorum, you are as much a part of the group as ayone else, perhaps older and more wiser but not resricted”
I understood the first part of this but not the rest, could you please clarify.
“What I am looking to hear from is Elders who attend with the High Priest Group and how do you handle the second class treatment”
This is a statement of emotion, not of fact. You FEEL if I understand you correctly that you are treated like a second class citizen because you are an Elder attending High Priests? Do you have friends in the church? Do you socialize with other High Priests outside of church activities? Are you someone people can easily come up to, socialize with, say hi to? Perhaps your demeanor says to people that you FEEL you are a charity case and should therefore be treated as such? I don’t know, but in this instance I think you should think about your own actions first…and I mean REALLY think. I am not a young man I am in my 70’s but if there is one thing I have learned in life is that MY attitude affects how everyone ELSE treats me.
“A High Priest cannot answer because they would not have the experience. An Elder that attends Elder’s Quorum cannot answer for the same reason. A woman has nothing to compare it to. An 18 year old woman for example can grow into the RS group as she grows older but a man does not grow into the group as he gets older unless he is ordained a HP”
OK.
“If there is an Elder that attends High Priest Group and you are say 50 years old – how do you handle knowing that you might live another 40 years or so and you are going to be treated different for the next forty years just because you were never ordained to be a HP”
I don’t believe personally that there is a class hierarchy between the HP’s and the Elders. I believe you perceive that. I do not perceive it that way.
“I would also like to hear from Elders who are over 50 and how you deal with the silly thngs 25 year olds talk about. How are you going to deal with hearing their immuture remarks week after week for the next 40 years”
I enjoy the Elders company. I find that I have a lot of ideas and knowledge to share with them (a different perspective if you might) since I have been through the things they are currently dealing with. Love your fellow man. I don’t believe there to be a clause in there for selfishness. My problems are no more or less important than someone younger or older than myself. Any comments from the other readers?
“For those of you who seem to think the solution to all of life’s problems is to talk to the Bishop, you do not understand the problem. Unless you are a HP, you are treated as second class the rest of your life. If you do not understand the concept of being treated second class than you are not an Elder that attends HP. It is that simple”
I think this is a higly charged emotional commentay. I think many people have experiended feeling like a second class ciizen at some point in their lives…perhaps within the church.
“There is nothing a Bishop can do except approve you to be a High Prist to change the problem”
The Stake President is the president of High Priests quorums in their Stake. The Bishop recommends Elders for callings that require Stake approval and an advancement in the Priesthood. I know this because I have talked to my Bishop about the Priesthood. I think too many members of the church disregard their Bishops as a source of inspired knowledge. Yes, I think you should talk to your Bishop and or Stake Presidency. And, unless you are called to be a High Council member or Bishopric member or another calling that requires advancement then you will remain an Elder.
“Unlikely to happen since the HP group really needs to stay small so control of the Ward stays in the hands of a few men. Same thing on a Stake level”
I think this smacks of a conspiracy theory. Any thoughts from other readers?
“Often when you have a new Bishop, he comes from the High Council”
Sometimes but not exclusively.
“the Bishop that is released goes into the High Council”
No, that is not a requirement. My old Bishop was called to be a Seminary teacher. I asked my son in law and his previous Bishop is now a Sunday school teacher in his ward.
“When an Ex Stake President moves to a new Stake, he often becomes a High Councilor or a Bishop or some other high position within months of the move”
Sometimes, sometimes not. Comments?
“When an older Elder moves to a new Ward or Stake, he has to prove to the new Bishop over time that he is faithful. It does not matter that the older Elder has attended his whole life”
I don’t understand your meaning to “prove” himself?
“Is there a difference between callings – you bet there is”
Yes, some callings carry a heavier burden than others. But all callings are important.
“Are there Perks to being a Stake President for the rest of your life – of course there are”
The average time span that a Stake President serves is 10 years. I ounderstand that Both Stake Presidents and Bishops spend a lot of time away from their families, helping other members of the church, they aren’t paid and very often are not appreciated for their efforts. Are those perks? I am not so sure.
“Do Bishops and SP’s spend a lot of their time doing their Church callings? Yes but so do other members. Ward/Stake Clerks, RS & Primary Presidents and others”
Yes. Your point?
“If you have any experience with being an Elder and are willing to share your thoughts and experiences, please share them. I’m sure there are many brethren that feel alone and leave the Church for these reasons”
Yes I ave experiences, what exactly would you like to know? I am sure there are many people in the church that feel lonely and may leave as a result. I know many people in life that aren’t members that are lonely too, a lot of people take their own lives as a result. I am not sure how much being a member of the church factors in here. I am also sure there are a lot of members who feel like their wards are their second families and that a re quite happy. I also believe that if someone feels alone, isolated and unhappy a majority of the time, they might be depressed.
“If you have become less active, please share those experiences also”
I cannot help you here.
“Today I was told that life is too short and to take bad experiences out of your life and do the things that bring you joy and hapiness”
I would agree here.
“For the less active – Are you happier to not be so involved? I really would prefer to hear for those you have become less active due to the Elder vs High Priest dilema. If there are any, perhaps it is just me but I doubt it”
I might like to here about these experiences too.
“As a side note – I find it very interesting that those who claim to be righteous are the ones who verbally attack and insult the most”
I suppose you are talking directly about my niece. I do not believe from reading through past commentary that ANYONE has claimed ot be superiour and righteous. (except for me, I am superior and righteous…*winkwink*…I jest)
“Are they really as rightous as they claim? What do you think?”
I think everyone tries to do their best.
To Anne, found your comment to Kris about her gr. grandmother out of line. Her gr. grandmother WAS indeed murdered. She was not trying to one up anyone.
Jonah.
26 Mar 2006 @ 00:59 | Permalink
“I find that I have a lot of ideas and knowledge to share with them (a different perspective if you might) since I have been through the things they are currently dealing with. Love your fellow man. I don’t believe there to be a clause in there for selfishness. My problems are no more or less important than someone younger or older than myself. Any comments from the other readers?”
This is precisely why I do not think elders and high priests should be segregated by age. I do not think a man should ordained a high priest just because of his age. As I mentioned in my post, this practice causes problem, the most notable, of course, being the loss of mentorship between older elders and younger elders.
26 Mar 2006 @ 06:15 | Permalink
“I would also like to hear from Elders who are over 50 and how you deal with the silly thngs 25 year olds talk about. How are you going to deal with hearing their immuture remarks week after week for the next 40 years”
Ok, I am not over 50, nor a man, nor am I 25 anymore, but I have to pipe in here. 25 doesn’t automatically mean immaturity. My husband was called as EQ president when he was in his early 20’s. I didn’t attend those meetings, but I do know they talked about the Gospel, not engaging in “silly remarks”. At the time he was 25, they discussed Gospel topics and home teaching, etc etc. As well, I certainly was not silly when I was 25. Let’s see, oh yes, when I was 25 I lost my first baby. I certainly didn’t handle that in a silly manner.
Please, even if you don’t agree with how HP and EQ is divided up, don’t relegate anyone under the age of 40 to the realm of childhood. Mormon was called to lead an army when he was 15, Joseph Smith FINISHED his earthly work BEFORE he was 40, Jesus Christ died on the cross when He was 33. So, as you see, the majority of their work was in their 20’s. Wisdom isn’t exclusive to middle-aged and older men.
26 Mar 2006 @ 07:18 | Permalink
Bill, I’m still trying to make sense of your position.
At first you seemed angry that the Church invited older members of the Elders Quorum to meet with the High Priests. Now you seem to be angry that you’re still meeting with the Elders.
Apparently you view the office of High Priest as a “club” with certain unnamed “perks.” But the only perk you’ve mentioned is attendance at a party, for which permission was given. Exactly what is it about High Priest parties that makes them better than Elders Quorum parties? (As a High Priest, I think I’d rather be having fun at the Elders’ gatherings.)
You’ve also branded the office of High Priest as a mere tool that wicked, power-hungry men use to consolidate their power. But at the same time, you apparently want to be one of those men. If they’re so awful, why do you want to join them?
I do hope this thread will continue, if it continues, on a much more civil note. Irrelevant, cruel, and weirdly competitive stories about the crimes committed against one’s ancestors don’t belong here.
26 Mar 2006 @ 19:17 | Permalink
I know I said this before, but there is no advancement within the priesthood. We really need to drop that concept from the discussion. In Hebrews we learn that Jesus is a High Priest in the MP. Does that mean an apostle has advanced over Jesus?
There’s an old military saying that you can’t lead until you learn to follow. Another one is you can’t lead people where they don’t want to go. A leader who somehow thinks he/she is greater or more important than his followers, doesn’t understand leadership, nor does a follower who perceives himself inferior to the leader. For reasons I didn’t understand until the exit interview, I was in the leadership most of my mission, and hated it. Now I’m in my late forties with five great kids (only three remain at home). I’d be happy if I remained an Elder and primary worker for the rest of my days (which keeps me out of priesthood meeting anyway, PTL). Don’t worry, Itbugaf, I keep my unorthodox views private in primary.
Bill,
You have some valid points, the one about an Elder moving being on a weird probation a sorts until he proves himself for a suitable calling is one I’ve seen over and over. But once again, why are you letting an unrighteous judgmental practice get under your skin so much? Our leaders are people like us. Some are more humble and seeking of inspiration than others. They aren’t perfect.
You’re also on the money about limited leadership opportunities, particularly since the church hasn’t really grown for a decade now. But if you don’t perceive your non-leadership role as important, that’s sometime else for you to talk through with your Bishop.
The one about the dumb remarks of younger Elders was pretty lame. What about dumb remarks from old people? How about the never married HP telling me once how screwed up my son was (they were HT comps.)? Frankly, my son and I are very different people, and I’ve never really understood him. But for that single old man with no parental experience to be lecturing me on fatherhood was dumber than ____.
Again, try ironing this out with your Bishop. Talk to you SP if that doesn’t work. Ask the SP to get the local GAs input if needed.
26 Mar 2006 @ 19:29 | Permalink
I am beginning to doubt a lot of what Bill has to say; no offence Bill. This is not the way the church is run where I am from, nor is the experience of my friends (whom I have referred this strain to, and are watching this conversation with interest). Interesting.
Jonah
27 Mar 2006 @ 19:00 | Permalink
Bill: “I wish I was wrong.”
It’s so nice to see wishes granted. :)
28 Mar 2006 @ 06:38 | Permalink
I noticed something kind of intereting last Sunday. I helped out by driving 4 boys on their FO routes. The fathers were split 50 50 HP or Elder. It seemed like the sons of HP collected FO’s from HP and sons of Elders collected FO’s from Elders. Have you ever seen a division like this before? I never really paid any attention to it. I do know the Bishop had to approve the routes but I assumed he needed to make sure the boys did not go to some wacko’s house. Any thoughts on FO collections by Priesthood?
28 Mar 2006 @ 21:41 | Permalink
In our ward, the deacons go with priests who can drive. The families they visit are people who do not come to church.
28 Mar 2006 @ 21:45 | Permalink
“It seemed like the sons of HP collected FO’s from HP and sons of Elders collected FO’s from Elders.”
I’d say “seemed” is the operative word here. Fast offering routes are generally designed with geographical concerns foremost. But if you’re curious about how and why your ward is organizing its fast offerings routes, why don’t you just ask the people in charge, rather than a bunch of anonymous strangers who don’t know the answer?
29 Mar 2006 @ 05:11 | Permalink
Bill, I know a bishop who was excommunicated for having an affair. He was out of the church for 7 years and then was re-baptized and called to serve in a bishopric shortly after. I don’t know if he was called to be a bishop again.
Our stake clerk has been excommunicated twice.
It happens all the time here in southern Utah. Lots of sinners here.
29 Mar 2006 @ 08:17 | Permalink
excommunicated twice? oi, you’d think he learned his lesson the first time and avoided doing whatever it was he did! oh well, some people have to have it drummed into them I guess…
29 Mar 2006 @ 08:34 | Permalink
Well, you know what they say,”If at first you don’t succeed…”
Or was that,”The third time is the charm” ?
29 Mar 2006 @ 10:28 | Permalink
It did seem strange becasue my sons collect from both but the locations are like Utah next door to each other. What was strange is all the elder houses we missed so the HP sons could collect.
29 Mar 2006 @ 18:19 | Permalink
I am impressed that someone would go thru all the grief of being ex-ed several times and yet still come to church. My hat is off to them. My thought is that they are trying to get their life in order and they are being honest about their faults.
I also think exing and disfellowshipping is used way too often. We are supposed to be a Church about love and forgiveness not one of kicking you out if your not perfect.
With that said – I also think those who are evil need to be exed. I had a seminary teacher who turned homo and tried to get memebers of our Ward to follow him as a prophet. He needed to be exed.
I had told my parents he was either the most rightous man I had ever meet or the most evil about two months before it came out what he was doing.
Do I remember something being said earlier about the most righteous?
I’m just teasing.
29 Mar 2006 @ 18:29 | Permalink
I have received several emails from Ward Members wanting me to send an email to HBO demanding the cancel a show called Big Love. The email gave the impression it was approved of by the Church. Have any of you received this email? I did the HBO on demand to see what the fuss was about and the show I saw was in SLC, I do not recall it mentioning the Church except once when the leader of the Perverts was explaining to a news person why the split away from the Church. I did not see any of the sex this email mentioned. In fact, I think daytime soap operas are for more disgussing. When I channel surf the Mexican channels are the raunchy ones. Anyways – I was wondering if any of you knew why this email is being sentout and does the Church want us to send emails or is it some members doing something on their own that is not Church approved. I only saw the one show so I really have no opinion except it made me angry at how the perverts (they are perverts) treat their families so bad and old men marrying girls under 16. It really showed what a perverted life style multiple wives create when you do it outside of the Lord’s way. I expect there is a better blog than this one but I like the opinions you guys have expressed.
I hope Kris is ok. Have not seen her respond in awhile. I like her fiery attitude.
29 Mar 2006 @ 21:02 | Permalink
“I expect there is a better blog than this one but I like the opinions you guys have expressed.”
That depends how you define better.
You may be interested in this post.
29 Mar 2006 @ 22:21 | Permalink
I have read most of these posts with some interest. As someone who was born not being able to hold the Priesthood until 1978, I do wish you would all see what a blessing it is to HOLD the Aaronic or Melchizadeck priesthood.
My family and I were baptized in 1974, and then the family that baptized us left. My Mom, Dad sister and I were the only members–being black, we met every Sunday for Sunday School and Primary, but could not hold sacranemtn meetings.
Once in a while, the Mission President would fly down for a visit. We felt so blessed to have the sacrament when he and his councellors came.
With the revelation that all worthy members could hold the priesthood we were overjoyed! I was 12 at the time, and was ordained a deacon by my dad who was first ordained an Elder.
My dad remained an Elder while in his early 60’s until a few years after we moved to the US and was called to be a High Councelor. My Dad, brothers and I don’t care what office we hold, where we meet, or with which group of priesthood bretheren we meet as long as we get to serve the Lord, and help bless the lives of our families and others.
5 May 2006 @ 15:28 | Permalink
PeterN
Thank you SO much for saying this. The Priesthood is a blessing, and it is a privilege, not a “right” as some people think. Your view of it is conpletely correct. It isn’t a status placement or such. It is such a blessing that we have the priesthood available to us in the latter days.
5 May 2006 @ 15:46 | Permalink
PeterN – I appreciate your comments. I know they were from your heart. I expect it must have been hard for your father to know he was a good man and because of something he had no control over that he/his family were not part of the group. Question – How would it changes things for you (and anyone who cares to answer) if you were only allowed to be an Elder? Did you father attend Elders Quorum or High Priest Quorum while he was in in 50’s? If so, was he part of the group or treated like a visitor?
In our HP Quorum the ratio of HP to others is 1/3. The majority (2/3) of the members of the HP Quorum are not HP and yet they are treated differently than the ones who are actually HP. Is this the way the Lord would manage things or is of man?
6 May 2006 @ 16:41 | Permalink
Bill,
In response to your comment:
My family and I spoke of this many times. It was not difficult for us to not hold the priesthood because we were black. We knew the church is true, and had faith that we would hold the priesthood sometime in this life or the next.
My dad often told me that he never expected to hold the priesthood in this lifetime. He would quote the following:
Coming from this perspective, I hope you can understand that it doesn’t matter to us if we are Elders, High Priests, or meet in a combination of whatever group. Just as long as we can serve heavenly father and help those in whatever priesthood group we are assigned. Today, I am 40 and am an elder. I could be 95 and an elder, meeting with the elders and would still be happy as long as I can serve.
I hope I don’t sound “preachy” but I am just explaining my family and I feel.
I respect your situation, but just want to share how I see things. For me, its more about what I can contribute to whichever group or class or meeting I am in.
7 May 2006 @ 10:48 | Permalink
Amen, brother. I wish others had the same idea. I can imagine the look on the stake president’s face in a few years when he interview me to be made a high priest and I tell him no.
7 May 2006 @ 12:09 | Permalink
Kim said:
So, you’re planning to refuse to be ordained a high priest. Wow. I wouldn’t have expected that. Are there any other things the Stake President may ask you to do for which you’ve already planned your refusal?
28 May 2006 @ 07:07 | Permalink
ltbugaf
No he isn’t saying he would refuse it completely. He just means if he is called in to be ordained just because he has reached a certain age and not because he is recieving a calling where one needs to be a high priest.
Kim has been asked to do things from the stake president (different stake presidents) and he has never said no. Like when he was called as EQ president years ago shortly after we were married and the SP asked him to put his hair back to it’s original colour after he had bleached it blonde. He did this.
28 May 2006 @ 07:27 | Permalink
ltbugaf, I was not referring to the seating arrangements at GC. Those seats are assigned based on seniority and the power structure of the GA’s.
The seating assignments we have discussed is why does the family of a SP and his counselors get reserved seating for Stake Conference. There is no scriptural reference for it.
Mary – just a thought – What would be your feelings if Kim was asked to attend with the HP but was not allowed to participate. Do you think it would effect him? An example would be this – New counseor for HP Group and only HP’s are allowed to raise their hand to sustain. Would this bother Kim, would it bother you?
28 May 2006 @ 07:50 | Permalink
Why weren’t you referring to them? If you believe that any distinction between Priesthood leaders and other members is “evil to the core” and needs to be abolished, then why aren’t you going after the distinctions at General Conference?
28 May 2006 @ 09:30 | Permalink
Bill, well, I don’t see why he would be asked to attend unless he was a HP. Only members of the quorum vote, so he shouldn’t be attending unless he is a member of that quorum anyway.
28 May 2006 @ 11:32 | Permalink
Mary, there are situations where men who aren’t members of the quorum do attend the high priest group. That’s the topic of this thread. The direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have instructed that men who are older than most of the other elders should be invited (not forced) to attend the high priest group if they would feel more comfortable among the high priests, who are likely to be nearer their own age and have more in common with them.
Of course, you’re quite right that a person who’s not a member of a quorum doesn’t vote in the business of that quorum. That’s how the Lord chose to organize his priesthood.
28 May 2006 @ 16:09 | Permalink
Incidentally, this isn’t true just of older elders. It’s also true of men who hold only an Aaronic Priesthood office, or no priesthood at all. They are invited to attend the meeting of the Melchizedek Priesthood quorum that is generally closer to them in age.
28 May 2006 @ 16:11 | Permalink
I’m aware of that, but this doesn’t make them members of the quorum. I personally don’t see a problem with them not being allowed to vote or sustain if they are not members of the quorum. When we visit another ward or stake we don’t sustain people called to positions, while we are visiting. It’s never bothered me. However, I don’t see why EQ members should attend HP unless they are high priests. Being a member of a priesthood quorum shouldn’t be dependent on age. If they want to go fine, but that doesn’t make them high priests, since being a member of a priesthood quorum isn’t an automatic right anyway.
28 May 2006 @ 16:20 | Permalink
You’re right, it doesn’t make them members of the quorum, which, of course, is why they don’t vote. I was just responding to the part of your comment that said, “I don’t see why he would be asked to attend unless he was a HP.” But perhaps, since Kim is relatively young, you didn’t figure the other way would apply to him—and if so, I imagine you were right.
In fact, I can’t find a single thing in your comment I disagree with. So there! :)
28 May 2006 @ 16:45 | Permalink
Mary said:
Itbugaf is correct here. I have no intention to engage you, Mary, but a few comments about these last two observations of yours.
Sometimes EQ members are either asked, suggested, or encouraged (pick your point on the spectrum) to attend HP quorum meetings at the request of the bishop. The reason may be age related, training/development related, or even activation related (we have examples of all three in our quorum, for example), and the bishop’s reasoning is often not explained; whatever the reason, “elder elders” typically don’t just wander about looking for the softest chairs. If there’s a elder in a HP meeting (or v.v.), there’s typically a good reason for them to be attending there.
And age does play a factor in quorum involvement, albeit age is more applicable to the younger APH members (typically there are no seventeen-year-old-deacons meeting with the twelve-year-olds). I’m still learning about the logistics of HP quorums myself, but it would make perfect sense to me that, let’s say, an eighty-year-old convert (it could happen) who was ordained a priest after his baptism, would probably attend meetings with the HP and not with either the priests or elders.
If I understand you correctly, you mean to say that a priesthood holder, regardless of the office, doesn’t have an automatic right to membership in a quorum? I’d beg to differ here. From October 1998 GC:
Peace out.
28 May 2006 @ 17:55 | Permalink
I know, but I don’t see why it should. It doesn’t play a role in Relief Society.
I should clarify; Holding the priesthood isn’t a right. It’s a privilege and not every man is entitled to it, just because.
28 May 2006 @ 18:05 | Permalink
But how could it? There aren’t any authority divisions in RS. The PH typically has to deal with five subclasses (there are exceptions to this all over the church where all the APH meet together because of size and/or attendance), a logistical nightmare outside of the Church’s organizational structure. That automatically creates socio-psychological differences where they’re (currently) handled by age (although there is nice crossover when fathers and sons hometeach).
In the same talk I quoted from earlier, E. Christofferson quotes from E. Stephen L. Richards in explaining that quorums function as a class, a fraternity (the good kind), and a service unit. I’m not sure when 12, 14, 16, and 18-19 became canonized boundaries, but I do know that the duties of those groups are canonized. Less clear are the lines between EQ and HP.
BTW, if you read my previous comments back, you’ll see I agree with you re: EQ/HP and age. I’m working through this issue myself; I’m not always sure why we divide up: we each have the same lesson, we each have the same priesthood. Quorum business obviously differs. If there were a way to take care of that part, I’m on board for combining all the PH. I see a great benefit to both elders and HP in seeing one another’s perspectives on service, family dealings, and passing on wisdom (to any age).
Duly noted.
28 May 2006 @ 22:39 | Permalink
Right. Again, I don’t see why it should, however.
29 May 2006 @ 04:14 | Permalink
This is what happens when a thread goes too long; we’re just covering the same ground again. The priesthood is divided into quorums, because the Lord organized it that way. The Relief Society isn’t organized into quorums, because the Lord organized it that way. The natural functioning of the priesthood quorums results in one quorum tending to be older than the other. That’s it. We can go on all day about why the quorums shouldn’t be organized as they are, but they are.
29 May 2006 @ 05:59 | Permalink
I disagree that it is natural. At least not entirely. Based on my experience, much of the age difference between elders quorum and high priest group is artificial (i.e. moving men to high priests group because they are in their forties now).
29 May 2006 @ 06:05 | Permalink
I already explained why it happens naturally.
29 May 2006 @ 06:12 | Permalink
I’m not sure those comments explain it fully. I know plenty of bishops, high councilmen, stake clerks and bishopric counsellors (including former ones) who are around my age or younger. Conversely, I know of several brethren who are in their forties and fifties who have never been ordained as high priests.
29 May 2006 @ 07:50 | Permalink
Because they’ve never had calling requiring them to be high priests, or they’ve never requested to be ordained a high priest.
29 May 2006 @ 07:59 | Permalink
Right. But if high priests are older and elders are younger because of the nature of callings, this would not be the case.
29 May 2006 @ 08:01 | Permalink
The key is that most people that age have had callings requiring them to be High Priests or have requested to be called as such. Sure, there are exceptions, but generally speaking this is the case.
I’m now confused as to what you’re asking and the point.
29 May 2006 @ 09:16 | Permalink
That’s the point of the post. I don’t see why people should become high priests other than because of what I said in my post.
29 May 2006 @ 10:56 | Permalink
Kim, I think the general practice—I’m sure with exceptions—is not to ordain men high priests just because they’re “old enough” but rather to ordain them only when their callings require the high priesthood. That’s why some older elders get invited to attend with the high priests, without being ordained to their quorum.
29 May 2006 @ 19:03 | Permalink
My dad was ordained a high priest because he was “of the age”. He hasn’t had a calling where it was required.
29 May 2006 @ 19:09 | Permalink
Then I was (predictably :) ) right when I said there were exceptions.
29 May 2006 @ 19:11 | Permalink
The last three wards in which I have lived have practiced moving elders to high priests solely because of age.
29 May 2006 @ 20:14 | Permalink
Mary, that’s a load of bull. It may appear that way for your father. At a certain age, a bishop may encourage a man to be worthy to be ordained to a high priest, and if found worthy he may be ordained to the office of a high priest. That is just as valid a reason to become a high priest as a calling.
29 May 2006 @ 20:17 | Permalink
It appears that many of you have no real idea of how the church works. How annoying for an old man.
29 May 2006 @ 20:19 | Permalink
There are always exceptions (so leave out new members, less active, etc.) but when a person attends a quorum over a period of time there should be a point where that person becomes a member of the quorum.
There is not a natural progression to becoming a HP. Assume you are a male age 25 living in a large stable ward (50 to 80 elders). During the next 20 years 12 (most likely less) men will be placed in the bishopric. You could have another 12 men (most likely less) made HP to serve in the HP. There might be someone made a HP to serve on the high council. If you are not one of the lucky 25 made a HP to serve in those callings, then you stay an elder.
An active older elder is usually not given callings in the elders quorum (always an exception). An older elder that attends HP quorum is treated as a second-class member of the HP quorum. Generally, an elder does not give the lesson, does not sustain leadership, does not attend stake quorum meetings, and does not attend HP parties unless the bishop approves it. The elder is often excluded from serving others.
Depending upon the bishop, an elder that attends HP can be sent back to elders quorum when he changes wards.
Unless an elder can become a HP, he often will be treated second class by both the elders quorum and the HP quorum as he ages.
The inactivity level of men in their 50’s who have not been ordained HP is quite high; much higher than anyone wants to admit. You can make up trite sayings but they do not change things.
If you live in a stable ward, just picture the ward 20 years ago when it had 50 to 80 elders in it. Assume 25 of them became HP, do you have 25 to 55 active elders over the age of 45? Some of them will have been moved to HP but the rest will most likely be inactive.
In my ward, the HP meet in the high council room and the elders meet in the seminary room. The HP get plush chairs and the elders get plastic chairs. I guess the HP does not have perks.
29 May 2006 @ 21:10 | Permalink
Nevertheless it happened. I don’t see though, why one would need to be more worthy to be a high priest than an elder. They are both offices (hierarchal though of course) in the Melchezidek priesthood that have different responsibilities. That was why he was moved to high priests, because he was becoming too old for the elders quorum. I am not complaining, nor is he, but this does happen sometimes.
30 May 2006 @ 04:19 | Permalink
No Mary, it doesn’t happen that way. Worthiness is the basis for all priesthood ordinations. For example, to become a priest from a teacher the bishop stands in and says in sacrament something to the effect of ’so and so has turned 16, and upon interviewing him I found him worthy to be ordained to a Priest’. Worthiness is the basis for all priesthood ordinations not age, darlin’. That is the way the Lord set up the priesthood and it does not change (no matter what you think you understand about your father).
30 May 2006 @ 07:39 | Permalink
Mary, I did not follow. Was it your father who was moved to the HP group? Was he ordained a HP or is he still an elder?
30 May 2006 @ 07:54 | Permalink
Pete
But this is exactly what happened. Why did he need to be a high priest rather than an elder? He was told the reason he advanced at that time was because of his age. If it was a matter or worthiness why not earlier? He wasn’t any more worthy at that time than before.
30 May 2006 @ 07:54 | Permalink
He was made a high priest and moved to the high priest group. This was many years ago.
Oh and another thing, don’t patronise me, Pete. I am not a credible teenager. I know very well how the priesthood works.
30 May 2006 @ 08:11 | Permalink
I can certainly say that in every case when we discussed in our bishopric meetings advancement of an elder to the office of high priest, it was only age that was ever discussed. Never once did the bishop or anyone else in those meetings ever say anything about advancing the brethren because they were now worthy of it.
30 May 2006 @ 08:53 | Permalink
All, This thread appears to be what D&C 121 was adressing.
“Gratifying pride”
“Hence many are called, but few are chosen.”
Worrying about perks, profile or opportunity is the same as having your “heart set upon the things of the world.”
It doesn’t matter if you are in HP or EQ. You are all elders. Same responsibilities, same covenent with the Lord:
D&C 84:33–39
Time to gird em up and get to work.
10 Jun 2006 @ 22:06 | Permalink
Without wanting to read through the post history, I’ll bite…
If they dont feel they belong, that’t really their own problem. I struggle with this weekly. I absolutly hate going to sunday school or priesthood. In fact, I hate it so much that they called me to be the EQ sunday lesson instructor. If it wasn’t for that, and the fact that I feel that primary is the most important auxilary and that my kids need to be there, I’d take my family home after sacrament meeting.
Previous to my new calling, I hated 3 things about elders quorum. Now I only hate 2 because I can do something about the first one.
The first was going each week and having some unprepared schmuck ask for people to read portions out of the manual. No thanks, I can, and already do that in my own time. I’d much rather be sitting at home in my pyjamas in bed reading the manual. There was no worthwhile discussion, nobody was ever prepared, and nobody wanted to be there.
Second, I really don’t care for anyone in the quorum. It’s a very cold ward we have moved into, and after 12 years of marriages and being in 7 different wards during that time, I don’t think it’s just me. People here are just too busy with their own lives to care about anything and anyone else. Not liking the people in the quorum is something I really strugle with as an instructor because I really don’t care if they get anything out of the lesson or not. I don’t even care if they show up or not. That part of me needs a major attitude adjustment.
Third, I have very little respect for the presidency. They offer no direction or real leadership. They are HT Stat collectors, period!, and I can’t stand it. If pressed for an honest answer, I’d have to say that I don’t sustain them because I don’t agree with anything they do. Again another attitude adjustment is probably needed here, but I think some of my concerns have merit.
So to answer Bill’s questions, I’d say that some of these who do not attend feel the same about similar things. There may be other reasons as well.
The individual first needs to be converted to the principle of “Quorum” and what that means. I can honestly say that I understand the principle, but I think I’m far from conversion. With conversion, they will be there no matter what. The only way they can become converted is to feel the spirit with respect to that principle. And the only way they will feel the spirit is if the correct doctrinal principles are being taught during elders quorum and if the quorum leadership is functioning properly and truly ministering to each member individually.
Along with that, the sunday quorum meeting needs to be a place where the members want to be. We all want to be heard. We all have something worthwhile to say. In fact, older members of the quorum are the most valuable assets that an EQP has in the sunday meeting. Those younger quorum members need to hear the senior members perspective and receive their council on matters that the young guys are just encountering for the first time. It is a very sad state when all that wisdom and intellect is taken from the quorum by having them attend the HPG. Any bishop or stake president who feels that older elders should be re-assinged to the HPG without making them High Priests needs to repent and realize the damage they are doing to the EQ.
Similar damage is done when they take elders to be in the YM presidency. It’s usually these young elders, who they put in YM, who are historically the worst home teachers and role models for the YM. The HP really need to be helping prepare the youth and the elders need to be in EQ to get the support and strength they need at their young age. I realize there are exceptions to this, but in general, having HP in YM should be the plan. As long as bishops think YM is about entertaining the youth we will always have the wrong class of priesthood leaders leading the YM.
Third, the people have to want to care about each other. No quick fix there. I think that is something that could take months, if not years to fix. Good luck with that!
15 Jun 2006 @ 08:57 | Permalink
I agree. Our YM were fortunate when Kim was in the presidency, because he was already committed to HT and he was a good role model for them at that time.
15 Jun 2006 @ 09:05 | Permalink
I completely agree, and this specific thought is what prompted my post.
15 Jun 2006 @ 09:14 | Permalink
Which brings us back to why would an older elder want to attend the HP quorum when he would never be a member of the HP quorum?
Why not have an elders quorum that is made up of elders over the age of 40?
14 Jul 2006 @ 19:58 | Permalink
Which was the point of this post.
14 Jul 2006 @ 20:14 | Permalink
Personally, I just hope that he speaks up.
I get rather tired of 22 year old, newly married, no children elders who freely give out advice on raising children as though they have 20 years experience and a PhD on the topic.
When the “more experienced” elders share their thoughts and views, I find I get much more out of the lesson / discussion.
11 Aug 2006 @ 06:02 | Permalink
Yeah, but they’ll get theirs. Everyone does it, men and women, before they have children and think they have the answers. Just wait. They’ll learn on the job like the rest of us.
11 Aug 2006 @ 06:05 | Permalink
Our elders quorum must be an anomoly.
11 Aug 2006 @ 07:36 | Permalink
I don’t get this comment, casting Elders as less spiritually mature than High Priests:
I just got punted back into the EQ from YM. I’m serving as the EQ president. I don’t see myself or the members of the EQ as any less “spiritually mature” than any given high priest. Could I point to a HP who is more spiritually mature than an elder? Sure. But I could equally point to an elder who is more spiritually mature than a HP.
I guess I don’t get this thought-process. Just because you are an elder does not mean you are any less worthy (or spiritually mature) than a high priest. It is completely contrary to the teachings of Elder McConkie.
7 Sep 2006 @ 10:03 | Permalink
Perhaps that’s something you should bring up with your bishop and stake president.
Why would you equate spiritual maturity with worthiness? Becoming a high priest has nothing more to do with level of worthiness than becoming/being an elder.
Your comment gives me the impression that you think being less spiritually mature is a bad thing. Why?
7 Sep 2006 @ 14:37 | Permalink
Why should I bring this topic up with my bishop or stake president?
When someone speaks of spiritual maturity, I understand that as one who is fully developed as to things that are spiritual. Fully developed is subjective (and perhaps unattainable absence being in the presence of God), but it would mean when one is able to aptly discern spiritual matters and commune with the spirit on a regular basis.
Worthiness impedes the ability of a person to commune with the Spirit. Therefore, worthiness is a key component in determining whether one is spiritually mature (since one who IS spiritually mature will recognize that worthiness is important and therefore strive to be worthy). I can see that one may at one point be spiritually mature and yet fall into unworthiness, and believe that the perfect man in this thing (or perhaps imperfect) is he who is a son of perdition.
I agree. Worthiness is required of both. High priest is merely an office in the MP. Being a HP neither means that one is more worthy, nor that one is more spiritually mature. In fact, I’d argue that Joseph Smith was more spiritually mature at 14 than are many ordained elders and high priests.
Explained.
8 Sep 2006 @ 06:05 | Permalink
Because they are who you discuss your concerns and needs with. Your stake president in particular as he is over you, as elders quorum president.
I don’t know about many, some, perhaps. But obviously he wasn’t spiritually mature enough to receive the plates and organise the Church at that time. Spiritual maturity is a growing process. It doesn’t come overnight, it doesn’t make one better or worse to be more spiritually mature. It’s something that comes with study, time and effort.
I would disagree with this. None of us, including the prophet are at this stage. Jesus Christ is, Heavenly Father is, perhaps many others are. To achieve this state we would need to complete this estate.
Have you ever heard the talk by Sis Okazaki “The Power of Charity”? There is much to be learned from that. What we are meant to become is perfect in Christ-like love. And that alone can be a lifelong process.
8 Sep 2006 @ 06:24 | Permalink
And what do you believe I am “concerned” about?
We will disagree. If one is sufficiently spiritually mature, I believe that God is unable to abstain from bringing you into his presence, e.g., brother of Jared. As I doubt that most high priests have seen God, I believe it probably that Joseph Smith at 14 was more spiritually mature than most HPs.
I’ve explained my definition of spiritual maturity. That does not mean that one is physically/mental mature, or able to handle burdens (and surely the plates were that) at that age. It’s important to have spiritual maturity as well as physical/mental maturity. Smith may have been spiritually mature enough to have seen God, but that does not mean that he could pilot an F-15 at that age.
I agree that is how we exercise and hone it. It does not mean, however, that we all start at the same point. I believe Smith was far advanced in that plane, and that his starting point is further advanced than most of us. Can we reach that same advancement? Sure.
Please define “spiritual maturity.” I’ve used the ordinary defined terms of the English language. What is yours?
8 Sep 2006 @ 06:36 | Permalink
Because they are the ones who determine when elders become high priests. If they decided to advance someone who is not spiritually mature enough or not advance someone who is spiritually mature enough, than they would know why, not I.
I do not believe anyone in the church is fully developed spiritually. I believe there are always ways we can further develop spiritually.
I would add that spiritual maturity likely includes a better understanding of the gospel, and perhaps more experience on which to draw wisdom.
I agree, but I do not think it is the only component. Someone can be less mature spiritually and yet be completely worthy of holding the priesthood.
Perhaps not in practise, but I believe it should. Out of curiosity, what qualifications do you think a person should have to be made a high priest?
It’s possible for those who are authors. Feel free to proofread your comments before pressing the “Post Comment” button.
8 Sep 2006 @ 07:50 | Permalink
I don’t know, I didn’t read it, I just responded to your comment. But your comments do seem to express some concerns.
My definition of spiritual maturity is attaining perfection. For example, perfect in charity, as I already said. The spirit of dissension does not fall into this category.
8 Sep 2006 @ 08:13 | Permalink
I have not opined that high priests are not “spiritually mature enough” to “advance” to ordination as a high priest. That statement strikes me odd for two reasons.
First, one does not “advance” to a high priest (as one does from deacon to teacher to priest). The MP is not a preparatory priesthood. This is contrary to Elder McConkie’s teachings in “Only an Elder.”
Second, I believe that people are ordained high priests as is required for the callings that they receive. Reception of those callings (assume all are inspired) requires that a man be spiritually mature. Therefore, it would be my assumption that all high priests have reached a minimal level of spiritual maturity. Further, the office of an elder requires spiritual maturity, thus I would argue that all elders also have spiritual maturity. What I disagree with is a finding or belief that because one is a high priest that he is more spiritually mature than an elder.
That is absurd.
Do you believe that all high priests are more spiritually mature than elders?
I agree.
You disagree with my definition of “spiritually mature.” How do you define “spiritually mature?”
Why?
In our stake, the only reason a man is ordained a high priest is if he is called to a position that requires that office. Period.
I agree with that position, because I do not believe that only men ordained as high priests in this life are capable of receiving all that the Father hath. I further believe that any man in the Church can be just as worthy as any prophet or apostle (making an unnecessary distinction between those two titles).
In essence, my argument is that it is a mistake to assume that a high priest is more spiritually mature than any given elder, since spiritual maturity is required for both offices. Further, the offices of the priesthood do not prevent a man from increasing in spiritual maturity any more than it would be true that members of the Relief Society are less spiritually mature because they are not ordained to a priesthood office.
I never felt that I was restricted. Thanks for the invite.
8 Sep 2006 @ 08:19 | Permalink
I have no concerns on this matter. I disagree with the view that a high priest is necessarily more spiritually mature than an elder.
Then none of us are spiritually mature. Correct?
8 Sep 2006 @ 08:22 | Permalink
Correct. But this is my opinion only. I don’t claim to be right. It’s just a theory (like most comments here).
8 Sep 2006 @ 08:44 | Permalink
Although not the rule, it can be generally observed that members of the EQ are less mature in general (physically, emotionally, spiritually). This observation may not apply in your area, but church wide, I think it’s pretty accurate.
I think one could define spiritual maturity in the same way we define other forms of maturity.
If we just look at the definition of maturity in general, the following may apply:
If we extend these to spirituality, I think the definition is self explanatory.
The observation you are objecting to is that since demographically the elders quorum is mostly comprised of younger adults, or adults new to the church, they are generally less spiritually developed and are still going through the majority of their growth.
Even if we look at Joseph Smith Jr. at the age of 14, he was very spiritually immature. It wasn’t until after years of experience and spiritual education that he was ordained a high priest.
Currently, the handbook recommends to stake presidents that a priesthood holder be ordained to the office of high priest if:
It also recommends that they be mature and have years of experience behind them.
The scriptures identify the type of individual that should be called as a high priest. Specifically, in Alma 13 it lists attributes like
It is difficult to prove one’s faith and righteousness before God when one has not been sufficiently tested over time or does not have sufficient experience to back up those claims.
Although there are brethren called to be high priests who do not have the “spiritual maturity” called for by the scriptures or the handbook, I think these cases are the exception rather than the rule.
In general, I would submit that the observation that “elders are less spiritually mature than high priests” is fair and accurate.
8 Sep 2006 @ 09:33 | Permalink
I agree that if I were making a judgment call and needed to pick the most “spiritually mature” person for a task, given an elder and a HP I would pick the HP. why? As a rule, I assume more spiritual maturity from HPs than from elders. However, I make that choice based on the norm. Nevertheless, I won’t be making that choice based on general rules because I believe that doing so ignores specifics. The lord did not choose a high priest to lead Israel in the time of Saul. He chose a boy prophet. He did not choose an old man to restore the church. He chose a rather uneducated youth. Just because a man is a high priest, does not mean he is more spiritually mature than an elder is. The office does not grant that. Just because a woman does not hold the priesthood, does not mean she is less inspired than the high priest or elder.
In fact, I view callings and priesthood offices are more indicative of responsibility and authorization to receive revelation for others, and less a statement of personal worthiness.
It is impossible for every man to serve as bishop (let alone apostle). Every man in the city of Enoch was found worthy. Even the elders, deacons and the women.
8 Sep 2006 @ 12:32 | Permalink
Why would you assume the HP was more spiritual (assuming the two men were of equal age)? Are you assuming a church calling makes a person more spiritual?
If so, being the EQP, does that make you more spiritual than the other members of your quorum?
Assuming a church calling does not make one more spiritual, then why separate men by those who have had a church calling from those who have not had one that requires the office (title) of HP?
What justification would there be (other than the Lord said so) to separate men based on previous church callings?
There sure seems to be a lot of EQP’s and ex EQP’s on this thread.
8 Sep 2006 @ 14:14 | Permalink
No. Because in my experience more high priests show greater “spiritual maturity” than do elders. However, there are exceptions and I realize that there are elders who meet or exceed the “spiritual maturity” of a given high priests.
I would expect that attorneys working for the Department of Justice to have greater honesty/ethics than attorneys practicing in personal injury. However, that does not mean that any given attorney with the DOJ is more honest than any given PI attorney.
No. But it should mean that I have sufficient “spiritual maturity” to guide and serve fellow elders.
You should not.
To provide for order. A perfect organization that espouses Christ-like service would only call those who live that life to positions of leadership. That does not mean that those leaders are the only ones who live that life (or are “spiritually mature), or even that they are the MOST spiritually mature.
What attracted me was a search for ideas on developing the spirituality of elders. When I saw the comment that suggested high priests are more spiritually mature than elders, it prompted a response.
8 Sep 2006 @ 15:11 | Permalink
tortdog
You want ideas on how to develop the spirituality of elders? Encourage them to have family prayer, family scripture study and family home evening. Encourage them to have companionship prayer and scripture study. Encourage them to have personal prayer and scripture study. Encourage them to pray for others, to participate in serving others. Show love and compassion for them.
It will work.
8 Sep 2006 @ 15:35 | Permalink
I misunderstood the question (upon rereading).
I think there is justification in doing this so long as the person served faithfully in the calling, as it informs us of past experience. That’s a positive indicator of future performance. However, it’s not the end all. In my view, solely choosing a person based on past callings is a flawed method.
8 Sep 2006 @ 16:15 | Permalink
What is the purpose of separating men one from another based upon a calling? Are you suggesting that a church calling would make one man more righteous over another man? What calling would do this?
Why is it important to know of a person’s past callings? Is there a resume with certain items on it that one must have to be righteous?
If you are never made a HP, would that mean you are not righteous?
8 Sep 2006 @ 21:11 | Permalink
There are several EQP’s that write on this thread, are there any HPGL’s that have any thougths?
8 Sep 2006 @ 21:14 | Permalink
Having been both an EQP and a HPGL I can honestly say that, from my experience, there is little to differentiate between the two, except for the nature of their callings.
It has been stated by the brethren, from time to time, that high priests should know and understand the gospel better than anyone else; but my experience has shown me that illiteracy is just as rampant in the high priest group as it is in the elders quorum.
It is a matter of demographics in our society, I understand based on recent studies, that better than 40% of adults are illiterate. That would apply equally to the Church as it would to society.
In the end it is redundant, IMHO, to compare states of spirituality between the two groups since the reality shows there is very little, if any, difference.
True enough, in the high priest quorum, one would expect to find men of greater leadership experience, and therefore more wisdom, but wisdom has not always been my experience with them, regardless of what offices they have held.
On the other hand, the most spiritually mature (and scripturally knowledgeable) individuals I have met have been high priests.
8 Sep 2006 @ 23:24 | Permalink
George. I believe I answered your questions in a prior post. if you explain what you need clarified I will be able to respond better.
9 Sep 2006 @ 04:33 | Permalink
To Tortdog – What church calling makes one man more righteous than a man that has not held that calling? I am not aware of one. A man can receive prestige and honor from a calling but not righteousness. A recent Prophet has said he has not seen God yet do you not believe in having your calling and election made sure? Do you believe there are those among us that have had their calling and election made sure? One would expect a prophet to have this but maybe your church callings is not the answer. Perhaps it is your own faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps the older elder in your ward is really the most spiritual and righteous person in your ward yet he is overlooked or ignored because of not having a certain church calling.
To Larry – You wrote “On the other hand, the most spiritually mature (and scripturally knowledgeable) individuals I have met have been high priests.” I can also say that the most evil men I have know also were high priest.
I am going to go out on a limb here and I am sure many of you will disagree but I am firmly convinced that the HPQ as a whole is for more responsible for people leaving the church than EQ and RS combined.
The office of HP in todays world is an administration position and not a spiritual one.
When a bishop calls a man to lead the YM program who had an affair with a 16 year old, resulting in a divorce, that was not an inspired calling. When a SP calls a man who beats his wife to a stake calling, that is not an inspired calling. When a SP calls a man to the high council that has a serious porn problem, that was not inspired. They were administrative callings or friendship callings or something other than inspired.
I do not believe members of the HPQ are more righteous than members of the EQ and should not be treated special in the church. Each man should be equal and there should not be royalty based on lineage or callings.
9 Sep 2006 @ 10:09 | Permalink
George,
You keep coming up with anecdotal evidence as to the unworthiness of those called to office. That is going to happen. This, after all,is mortality and mistakes will occur. Can you be responsible enough to come up with stories of those who have been called and have honourably served?
If not, perhaps there is a beam in your eye.
As for royalty, if you have been through the temple then you should have a clear and precise understanding of that term.
What I get from your comments is that you are either angry, or hurt, because none of the ‘higher’ callings have been given to you.
9 Sep 2006 @ 13:10 | Permalink
It is the Mormon Way to infer there is something wrong with the person who points out inequalities instead of looking at the problem.
In the EQ, men are equal but in HPQ that is not true. Elders that attend HPQ are not equal. There is a high % of men over the age of 50 that if they are not a HP they tend to not attend LDS services. Having been a HPGL I would expect you have this very problem in your ward. Why do think men over the age of 50 would quit attending LDS meetings?
10 Sep 2006 @ 19:32 | Permalink
No, it is not the Mormon Way to do that, but neither is it to do what you do, which is why I made the statement. There is no balance in your attack. If a stranger were to read your comments there is only one conclusion they could come to regarding leadership in the Church.
You clearly are angry.
As for your statements about those not attending HP group, it has nothing to do with inequality. There is no hierarchy in the HP group.
I did an interesting study a while ago. I was feeling a little alienated in my ward. I assumed that everyone else was socializing together and I was the odd man out. As I did my survey it was most intriguing to discover that every one of the HP’s felt the same way. My assumption that they were socializing and leaving me out was false.
Everyone of the quorum members, including ex-SPs, bishops, and HCs had exactly the same feelings about being isolated. They felt that no one wanted to socialize with them because they might have had to do some counselling, or whatever, with members in the past, and those members would not, or did not want to befriend them.
So the problem is not unique to those over 50, elders that are older, or any other demographic you might care to mention.
I have an South Asian home teaching companion who is in my quorum. I love him. He has never held a Church position, and likely never will. He is in his mid 60’s. He is a regular temple attender and is very active.
I asked him one day why it was that he was so active. He said that his testimony was so strong that he never paid attention to anything other than feeling the Spirit each time he came to church. He said that if no one ever talked to him, he would still be active.
Compare that to those who get their feelings hurt every time they turn around. Compare that to those who busy themselves steadying the ark, instead of building the Kingdom like my friend.
He is infinitely more happy because his heart is in the right place. He has taught me a lot about discipleship.
We have at least 3 other members of our quorum who are in the same circumstances, and who attend faithfully every week.
On the other hand, I know several who don’t attend. For one, it is because he doesn’t study the Gospel and cannot follow the discussion because it is over his head, according to him. Another brother got into the bad habit of skipping meetings because of his calling, and hasn’t overcome his laxness. Others don’t attend because they don’t have a testimony and are not willing to gain one, so it’s easier to stay away and go golfing, or fishing, or whatever.
Your statement about life and getting out of it what you put into it applies in the Church as well.
Again, I reiterate, your comments clearly indicate anger and criticism.
You claimed earlier that we didn’t believe that you read and learned from our discussions, and implied that we were wrong in assuming that. I don’t think so. If you had even taken the time to look up the hymn I recommended, you would have discovered a reason why bad men receive callings in the Church.
If you are not an angry man, then accept my challenge to relate a number of positive stories about leadership and HP quorums.
That would demonstrate an attempt to be balanced in your approach.
You won’t, and both of us know it.
10 Sep 2006 @ 22:31 | Permalink
Larry,
No, never better to hold our tongue.
I can never understand why we need to handle out leaders with kid gloves.
I assume by perspective, you mean the circumstances of his calling? That being the case, I would have voiced any objections I would have directly to him. If he is humble and teachable, he would be able to accept it. If not, well thats his choice, but it wouldn’t change the way I viewed things. If anything, being a close friend I would have felt more confortable approaching him.
Yesterday I had a conversation with a brother in our ward. He, like me, is a bit of a stickler for “whats right” not “Who’s right”.
I was sharing some of my experiences as an EQP with him. The size of our quorum came into the conversation. I mentioned that we had over 130 members in the quorum. He shook his head and said that can’t be, since in the scriptures it specifically states an elders quorum can only be 96 members in size.
I agreed and shared my experiece of trying to get the quorum split. It was almost two years I tried to convince our stake presidency and bishopric that we needed to make this change. Somehow they would always rationalize the size. Things like “well 30 or 40 of them are inactive so it’s not like they are all attending” or “there are a lot of them in young mens and primary, so it’s not like you are teaching all of them at once”.
Is that all they think elders quorum is? the sunday lesson? Do they really not understand what a quorum is and all of it’s functions?
If they are so careless and lack understanding in such a small thing, and so prideful and unteachable, whaat does that say about how they managed other things? In this case, where their decision was contrary to the standard set in the scriptures, what am I suppose to do? They are forcing me to choose between them and the scriptures. I choose the scriptures.
Suffer in silence? Not a chance. Hymn #260 seems to be fitting in situations like these.
11 Sep 2006 @ 05:30 | Permalink
A calling does not make a person righteous.
Seems likely.
Perhaps. As I have stated before, I prefer not to judge. I don’t really care whether the man in front of me is a HP, elder or a priest. I only care if he is doing his duty and striving to serve his fellowman as Christ would have us.
11 Sep 2006 @ 11:00 | Permalink
JM,
Interesting perspective. I remember when I was a deacon, we had about 26 deacons in our quorum. They had no trouble splitting us into 2 quorums.
I can understand your frustration regarding the response to your request, and I’m not sure I wouldn’t feel the same way. In fact, I’m sure I would.
There is a point at which I think we have to be careful, though. Once we have expressed our position, and the reasons for it, we forgo any responsibility with respect to that decision since we are not the final arbiters.
If those brethren did not follow through on your suggestion it behoves us, IMO, to support them, because we had agreed to do that when we sustained them. If we don’t then we could come under condemnation for not supporting the Lord’s anointed.
It’s not just a case of administration, but of followership in doing what we covenanted to do even when we feel it is a bad decision.
11 Sep 2006 @ 12:26 | Permalink
For the record, George, I checked our membership records two nights ago and of all those in our ward who hold the office of high priesthood, only one is not active.
22 Sep 2006 @ 18:49 | Permalink
Your statement does not surprise me at all. The number of actual HP in your ward is most likely a small number. Take total number of HPQ members (remove actual HP) and see how many of them are still active. If you want to get serious about looking at the problem, go ahead and remove the AP members and then ask why those who hold the MP (elder) were put into HP and why they are no longer active.
I am interested in what you discover. Do you think the elders that have been assigned to HP are still active? A few might be but what happened to the rest of them?
Assume for a moment there are 15 men over the age of 50 that are elders and you go out and active them, what callings would they receive? How many janitors and genealogy experts does one ward need? Do you believe the 15 men would be treated with respect by the rest of your ward?
24 Sep 2006 @ 10:45 | Permalink
I just have to ask – Do you still think the people who attend EQ struggle with the basics and need to learn on a more fundamental basis? If so, what is this more fundamental basis you speak of? Why are the PH manuals the same for each quorum and the RS then? Do you believe HP know more than elders? Do they have some kind of secret knowledge?
Is there a HP who is willing to admit they have secret knowledge the Elders do not have?
24 Sep 2006 @ 19:29 | Permalink
It’s not what’s in the manuals. It’s how you discuss it.
24 Sep 2006 @ 20:08 | Permalink
I have attended EQ and HPQ and I have not found them to be much different in regards to the lessons. The quality of the instructor makes a big difference but that can go either way.
If all of the Elders and PE were removed from the HPQ (your ward only) and put back in the EQ, would there be enough HP in your ward to function as a quorum?
24 Sep 2006 @ 20:28 | Permalink
First of all, the high priests quorum is a stake level quorum.
Second of all, there are roughly two dozen active high priests in our ward and no elders or prospective elders currently attend the high priests group meeting.
25 Sep 2006 @ 06:15 | Permalink
You must have an interesting ward. The HPQ in my ward (I know it is on a stake level) has 15 actual HP in it. The other 35 men in the ward level of HP are elders and AP.
The 15 actual HP are seldom in HP meetings due to other duties such as YM and stake callings. If you removed the 35 men and put them in elders quorum, the HP meetings would have about 3 men in them.
25 Sep 2006 @ 09:03 | Permalink
We have a large number of seniors in our ward, and many of them are high priests.
25 Sep 2006 @ 09:06 | Permalink
Kim,
Actually, the elders quorum is a stake-level quorum as well. It’s just grouped into smaller quorums (96) that are usually organized at the ward level.
I don’t think there is anything prohibiting having a single elders quorum that spans multiple wards, as long as they don’t break the 96 mark.
25 Sep 2006 @ 10:36 | Permalink
I still find that so misguided and insulting.
25 Sep 2006 @ 12:23 | Permalink
See, tortdog, as an elder you can’t see the forest for the trees. As a HP, I know that the statement is true . . . at least I think it’s true. . . I’m sure it must be true. . . doggone, what was the question again? :>)
25 Sep 2006 @ 13:11 | Permalink
tortdog
Are you saying you have no spiritual growth left to do? How did you gain this perfection? Please let us in on the secret.
25 Sep 2006 @ 17:50 | Permalink
JM
Yes, Kim knows that.
26 Sep 2006 @ 07:36 | Permalink
No, Mary. Where have I said that I do not have “no spiritual growth do do?”
I never claimed that I am perfect. Why do you say otherwise?
26 Sep 2006 @ 08:50 | Permalink
Mary,
You are the Aaron to Kim’s Moses. ;-)
26 Sep 2006 @ 11:58 | Permalink
tortdog,
You are an elder and a lawyer. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth about we HPs being far superior to elders. :)
What other conclusion can she draw? LOL!!!!!
26 Sep 2006 @ 12:31 | Permalink
Well, you know her statement does suggest what you write, Larry. If this is true:
Couple that with Mary’s statement and it must mean that that high priests are all perfect, and have (quoting her) “no spiritual growth left to do.”
Should I inform the elders in our quorum that once they have stopped “struggling with the basics” and learned those things of a “more fundamental level” that they should expect their ordinations as high priests?
26 Sep 2006 @ 13:04 | Permalink
I move that we extend the number of elders to say 192, with those in the upper half being those who have arrived at enlightenment, but have not yet reached the stature of those in HP’s. :>) LOL!!!
26 Sep 2006 @ 13:46 | Permalink
That’s all well and good, so long as we don’t let any elders mingle with the high priests who have no spiritual growth left to do.
26 Sep 2006 @ 13:49 | Permalink
Well, we will have to segregate. Perhaps we could move the HP’s into the richer neighbourhoods. For those who can’t afford it we could subsidize them.
The elders could be moved to the poorer neighbourhoods until they attain sufficient humility to associate with those of higher standing – perhaps as go-fers. That might be OK.
26 Sep 2006 @ 14:01 | Permalink
That’s how it works in our ward, Larry. No elders live south of 16 Avenue (not counting LCC residences). And the one elder who decided to buck the trend and move south of 16 Avenue was made a counsellor in the bishopric last month.
26 Sep 2006 @ 14:17 | Permalink
Some people just get it right.
Unfortunately, someone forgot to apply the rule properly when I was made a HP 25 years ago. I will look for remedy though. Perhaps tortdog can represent me and see that I get my just desserts. (And it better be more than banana cream pie). That will help determine if he really has the humility necessary. He can become my go-fer. . . Works for me. LOL!
26 Sep 2006 @ 14:44 | Permalink
I didn’t say that. Nor do I think it. Knowing plenty of high priests who have plenty of spiritual growth left to do. As well as knowing plenty of elders who have plenty of spiritual growth left to do too.
JM: :)
tortdog, you are reading more into Kim’s comment then what he is saying. He is not saying that everyone who is in EQ is struggling, however people who are struggling with the basics shouldn’t automatically be put into high priests quorum due to their age.
Point in fact, my husband is an elder and definitely is not struggling with the basics etc etc. Yet he is an elder and quite happy to be there. He is able to serve his fellow brethren in his capacity as EQ president, something which he wouldn’t be able to do as well as a HP.
26 Sep 2006 @ 16:41 | Permalink
Please explain “spiritual growth do do?”
26 Sep 2006 @ 19:12 | Permalink
Are you saying Kim could not be EP if he was a HP or if he was a HP that he would not serve his fellow brethren as well as he does as an Elder?
26 Sep 2006 @ 19:16 | Permalink
Tortdog, I don’t see that any more offensive than someone saying “CTR 6 is for children who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level before they move on to CTR 7″.
26 Sep 2006 @ 19:52 | Permalink
Um.. yes. Well I suppose technically he could be EQP as a HP, but it is unlikely to happen since there are plenty of elders to fill his shoes. And sure he could serve his fellow elders as a HP, but not in the same way as he can as an elder. He’s more directly involved as an elder to be able to do so.
27 Sep 2006 @ 04:09 | Permalink
JM. The MP quorums do not exist to denote a ranking or progression in the gospel or spirituality.
Do you agree with that?
27 Sep 2006 @ 05:35 | Permalink
No, I don’t.
The Melchizedek priesthood quorums only serve as organizational units for priesthood offices. Their purpose is to promote order.
Now, if you want to talk of priesthood offices, then I would say that the ‘ranking’ of Melchizedek priesthood offices is no different than any ranking in the Aaronic priesthood offices.
Do you feel that there is a rank or progression associated with the Aaronic priesthood offices?
27 Sep 2006 @ 07:37 | Permalink
Regarding my last post, I meant to say that “Yes, I do” agree.
Any discussion of rank would fall under a discussion of priesthood offices, not quorums.
27 Sep 2006 @ 07:39 | Permalink
There is a rank in the authorization of ordinances that can be performed, but not in the power of the priesthood, nor in the spirituality of the man.
Kim wrote:
I disagree with that viewpoint (as written). I would state:
To me, it’s that simple. Spirituality should not determine which quorum a person belongs to, because all men should be spiritual.
Do we “demote” a high priest if he falls in his spirituality (as we know is possible with all men)?
27 Sep 2006 @ 12:11 | Permalink
I believe tortdog is saying he disagrees with the ideal HP are more spiritual than Elders.
If so, then I agree with tortdog on this point. A Church calling does not make a man more spiritual than another man.
Is assuming a HP is more spiritual than an Elder some kind of false doctrine? I mean false tradition.
If you disagree, do you have a scripture to back up why HP are more spiritual?
27 Sep 2006 @ 19:02 | Permalink
I know what he is saying, he has already said it several times. No, a church calling does not make a man (or a woman) more spiritual than someone else. However, he (and you it seems) are missing Kim’s point. His point is that elders should not automatically become high priests when they reach a certain age, if they have not yet attained more spiritual maturity and understanding of the Gospel.
I don’t think anyone here is saying high priests are more spiritual than anyone else. I don’t think spirituality was the point anyway, but rather understanding. Nor does it mean elders don’t have greater understanding. For example, my husband has a pretty good understanding and definitely much more than a basic knowledge of the gospel, however that doesn’t mean he should automatically become a high priest. The offices of the priesthood are not (in spite of what you might think George/Bill) hierarchic as far as being more important than the other. They have differing responsibilities.
27 Sep 2006 @ 19:09 | Permalink
It was part of an ongoing discussion, Mary. If you do not want to be part of it, no one is forcing you to post.
On that note, Mary, I agree with your last post.
28 Sep 2006 @ 05:50 | Permalink
I wasn’t complaining about being “forced” to post.
28 Sep 2006 @ 06:01 | Permalink
So if men have attained a certain age and they have spiritual maturity and understanding of the Gospel should the men be ordained to the office of High Priest?
If you agree with ordaining men at a certain age, what age would that be? 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70?
If you believe the office of HP should only be reserved for those who hold a certain calling, then on a ward level, I am aware of 6 callings about every 5 years where a man would be ordained a HP. Some wards the number of men who might be ordained a HP could be as low as o to 1 in 5 years.
If you believe this, then does it mean there are usually 6 or less men worthy to be a HP every 5 years in every ward worldwide?
The 6 callings on a ward level I am aware of are:
If you believe age and spiritual maturity should factor in, then should there be a guideline for bishops and SP to follow for when a man should be ordained a HP?
Or should it be as it is now with no guidelines and left to the whims of local leaders?
28 Sep 2006 @ 07:33 | Permalink
I don’t see why. And I don’t have an opinion on that one way or another. I also don’t believe age has much at all to do with it.
28 Sep 2006 @ 08:36 | Permalink
I have a question for the females. If RS was divided into 2 groups, those who had been RS Presidents and those who had not would it make a diffeence to you?
Second part of the question. If you were not part of the RSP group (never asked to be a RS President) but forced to attend the non RSP group which is for people who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level and you have been a member for 50 years, how would a statement like this affect you?
Would you resent the suggestion that you still struggle with the basics?
I actually find this statement or tradition to be very insulting to oldermen who have not been asked to serve in one of the 6 slots.
28 Sep 2006 @ 10:02 | Permalink
RS and the priesthood are completely different. In RS we don’t hold offices. This example doesn’t make much sense as the RS president group would be rather small.
28 Sep 2006 @ 10:34 | Permalink
Mary & tortdog,
Pullleeez. Us old guys are much wiser, more knowledgeable, humble, and spiritual. If you don’t believe us, just ask us – we’ll tell you.
Now, where did I leave my mind…? :>)
28 Sep 2006 @ 12:04 | Permalink
The HP Group of actual HP (remove older Elders) is usually a rather small group at least in many wards.
I agree with you that it doesn’t make much sense. So why do it?
28 Sep 2006 @ 12:11 | Permalink
Because high priest is an office in the priesthood, and besides patriarch, all offices are part of a quorum.
28 Sep 2006 @ 12:19 | Permalink
Kim: Where I come from, we call that kind of answer beating around the bush. Are you running for office?
Do you still stand by the words you wrote 15 months ago that HP are more spiritually mature and Elders struggle with the gospel and ?
To be fair here is what you wrote:
I really think that high priests group should be reserved for past bishopric members, high councilmen, stake presidency members, etc and for those who are more spiritually mature. Elders quorum is for people who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level.
I would like to know if you would keep the same wording or if you would say things differently 15 months later and over 500 comments on this topic.
28 Sep 2006 @ 21:35 | Permalink
It’s not beating around the bush. I directly addressed a specific question you posed.
If my position had changed, I would have commented as such.
29 Sep 2006 @ 06:08 | Permalink
Kim: Do the elders in the quorum you preside over know that you write that you believe men in elders quorums are struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level? This sounds pretty arrogant to me.
Do you believe you will be a high priest and this thought justifies you to look down on fellow church members?
You have some interesting views regarding religion. You have written you do not believe Noah’s flood covered the earth like the Bible says. You do not believe the Nephites were large enough to fill America as Mormon tradition has taught. For doctrines you do not believe, you call them traditions and dismiss them. Do you consider yourself to be superior to other men and deserve to be a high priest.
Does your stake president know you believe these things? Are you worthy to be an EQP?
29 Sep 2006 @ 08:36 | Permalink
I doubt it.
Ever? I think it’s likely.
I don’t look down on fellow church members. Unless you have forgotten, I am in elders quorum as well. I, too, am struggling with understanding the gospel. Why they put me in as elders quorum president is beyond me; I certainly don’t think I did a bang-up job the first time. I don’t see how I am looking down on any of my fellow church members. If anything, I am looking up at them.
No.
No.
What things?
Well, I am worthy to go to the temple, so I can assume I am worthy enough for my current calling.
29 Sep 2006 @ 08:51 | Permalink
This thread is now open. I edited out everything that was not related to the post. It may seem a bit disjointed to start with.
8 Mar 2007 @ 22:01 | Permalink
Curious as to why you would reopen a thread as opposed to starting a new one with a similar topic.
9 Mar 2007 @ 21:57 | Permalink
I don’t see the point in opening a new post on the same topic.
10 Mar 2007 @ 08:58 | Permalink
Assumption – All older men (in Kim Siever’s Ward) who are Elders are not active.
What is the average age of the older Elders that are still active?
Is there a noticable age where men seem to become less active if they remain in the EQ as opposed to becoming a HP?
Is there a wider Elder/Age problem in the Church or is it just limited to Kim Siever’s ward?
In my ward the age of active Elders over 40 is small and active HP over 40 is large. We have lots of inactive men over the age of 40 who are Elders and yet they were very active when they were under 40.
I am aware of a ward where many of the inactive males (over the age of 40) were “promoted” to HP and after being “promoted” they started attending church again with their families.
11 Mar 2007 @ 15:22 | Permalink
In our quorum this Sunday, we had about eight elders in their 20s, four in their 30s, and three in their 40s.
I would assume, based on my experience and what I know of some of the older elders who are not active, is that they have not been active for a very long time, some of them shortly after becoming an elder. For most, if not all, of them they did not become less active after reach a certain age.
11 Mar 2007 @ 16:59 | Permalink
How many total elders (active & inactive) do you have in the different age groups?
For example:
20’s 8 active 4 inactive 12 total
30’s 4 active 8 inactive 12 total
40’s 3 active 9 inactive 12 total
50’s 0 active 12 inactive 12 total
60 0 active 12 inactive 12 total
Total 15 active 45 inactive 60 total
Why would older men become less mature in the gospel as they grow older? Perhaps there is an answer why older men quit attending church unless they are made a HP.
11 Mar 2007 @ 19:48 | Permalink
I don’t have those stats with me.
I don’t know that older men become less mature in the gospel. As I said in my previous comment, many of the less active ones in our quorum have not been active for decades (some not since they were in their early 20s).
11 Mar 2007 @ 20:13 | Permalink
Perhaps you can post the stats when you have them.
11 Mar 2007 @ 21:26 | Permalink
I haven’t seen that this is the case at all, or the reason and haven’t seen Kim suggest this either. Why would you think this was the case?
12 Mar 2007 @ 04:17 | Permalink
Recently we had about 3 older elders in our quorum who never attended quorum meeting. They weren’t less active per se, but had nothing to do with the quorum (walked the hallway, left early, etc…). At the last stake conference, they were made High Priests and now they magically attend all their quorum meetings, etc…
12 Mar 2007 @ 09:23 | Permalink
That’s just sad. Hopefully, they weren’t made HP just to get them out of the halls.
12 Mar 2007 @ 10:06 | Permalink
Sounds to me like we have a SP who needs to re-read Alma 13…
12 Mar 2007 @ 10:58 | Permalink
Is it necessary to attend EQ before one is ordained a HP?
Is JM second guessing his Stake President?
Does JM know some reason why these three men should not have been made HP? If so, why did you not object during Stake Conference?
My guess is that JM’s Bishop recommended the three men to be made HP.
12 Mar 2007 @ 14:10 | Permalink
If you are ordained an elder… all signs point to yes.
It is decidedly so
Better not tell you now
Ask again later (I guess I should show up for Stake Conference… (feel free to begin ad hominem attacks))
Most likely
12 Mar 2007 @ 14:25 | Permalink
Pewsitter
You sound awfully familiar. Do you have another username you use sometimes? Just curious.
12 Mar 2007 @ 15:28 | Permalink
I am not aware that attending EQ is mandatory.
No attacks from me. I am not aware that attending Stake Conference is mandatory. I am also not aware that it is mandatory to snitch on other people.
Do you think it would be a good thing to ordain worthy males to the office of HP after some number of years of activity? What would be the number of years or age?
12 Mar 2007 @ 16:13 | Permalink
No.
12 Mar 2007 @ 20:15 | Permalink
Do you think it would be a good thing to de-ordain unworthy males from the office of HP after some number of years of inactivity?
13 Mar 2007 @ 08:28 | Permalink
Guess it depends on your definition of unworthy and inactive. It’s possible to have an unworthy active priesthood holder and a worthy inactive priesthood holder. One doesn’t necessarily mean the other.
13 Mar 2007 @ 08:34 | Permalink
I have noted from the onset that Kim stated it was his very first PPI as a new EQ president. Perhaps that explains his naive approach to this inappropriately framed question and thread.
Instead of asking the world, perhaps he would have been better off taking his question to (guess who?) on his knees. I hope over the months he has had time to season in his calling and can see the folly in this thread and so many contentious contributions.
In his own mind Martin Harris was sure he was doing the right thing when he begged Joseph for the transcripts. He quickly saw the folly of it after bitter emotions and sorrow had beset him and the Prophet Joseph.
Speculating out load and in a public way is a sure way to invite opposition from dissidents, apostates and the like. Let’s be more spiritually discreet.
15 Apr 2007 @ 07:15 | Permalink
>I have noted from the onset that Kim stated it was his very first PPI as a new EQ president.
But not the first PPI ever as an elders quorum president. For the record, I served for two years as an elders quorum president in another ward previous to this post.
>Instead of asking the world, perhaps he would have been better off taking his question to (guess who?) on his knees.
Who’s to say I didn’t? Even so, if I had done only that, then how would other elders quorum presidents dealing with the same issue be able to see how others deal with the issue?
15 Apr 2007 @ 08:21 | Permalink
“Speculating out load and in a public way is a sure way to invite opposition from dissidents, apostates and the like.”
…so let’s all suffer in silence and continue to screw up in the same ways in different locations.
16 Apr 2007 @ 08:33 | Permalink
>so let’s all suffer in silence and continue to screw up in the same ways in different locations.
Or rather, let’s all suffer *unloaded*.
16 Apr 2007 @ 08:36 | Permalink
What do you mean by “screw up in the same ways in different locations”?
Are you suggesting that each congregation does things the same way?
29 Apr 2007 @ 15:32 | Permalink
“Are you suggesting that each congregation does things the same way?”
I’m suggesting that similar mistakes are made by different individuals in multiple locations, yes.
30 Apr 2007 @ 09:38 | Permalink
Alma 13 has bee mentioned a couple of times as setting for requirements for being a “high priest”. What is not being recognized is that the modern office of “high priest” did not exist at the time this was translated. As in the rest of ancient Israel, the “high priest” was the man who held the “high Priesthood” — that is to say, the Melchizedek Priesthood. A latter-day elder is as much a “high priest” in the Alma 13 sense as is a latter-day high priest, or for that matter a latter-day apostle.
9 May 2007 @ 19:48 | Permalink
Kim, I’m curious about your thoughts on my situation, and I’d appreciate your insight.
I am 45 years old. I served a full-time mission honorably. I married at 25 and have six children. My wife and I were virgins at the time of our marriage and have been strictly faithful to each other. We have always been active, have always payed a full tithe (even when we were starving grad students), have always participated in our wards, have never refused any callings, and have always held current temple recommends. We have our problems, certainly, but we are reasonably friendly people, well-liked by our fellow ward members. Neither of us has ever been subject to Church discipline.
I have served in several (three, I believe) elder’s quorum presidencies, but have never been the president. With my urging and some very specific suggestions as his counselor, our quorum president pushed to improve our home teaching, such that we had almost twelve consecutive months of 100% home teaching and a concomittant improvement in quorum brotherhood. I have not been in the presidency for several years now, but the home teaching efforts have lived on and subsequent presidents have maintained the high home teaching standards, so that we typically enjoy >95% home teaching completed each month (though I confess I don’t know how such stats are handled, and have occasionally had doubts as to exactly how accurate that is). I have also served for very many years as an elder’s quorum instructor.
I have served for many years in various teaching positions in Primary and Sunday school, including several years as gospel doctrine instructor. Fwiw, I received numerous compliments while an instructor; the bishop actually complimented me on my “scriptural knowledge”. I have been asked in private to comment on scriptural exegeses by several members, including high priests. As far as I can tell, my leaders do not consider me deficient in any remarkable way. I am currently the president of the Sunday school, having been specifically asked to help improve the teaching efficacy of several of my Sunday school teachers.
At 45, I am one of the oldest elders in my ward, with many of my friends (including several younger than I) having been ordained as high priests. The two elders in our ward that I know of who are older than I both attend the high priest group.
If I understand your statements correctly, I must assume that my (relatively) advanced age and current status as an elder indicate that I am less mature in my gospel knowledge and understanding than are the high priests, including those of my younger friends who are currently in that group. Is this correct?
10 May 2007 @ 11:21 | Permalink
Beats me. I have no familarty whatsoever regarding your spiritual maturity. I have three comments, however.
First, what I said is that I think high priests should be reserved for those who are spiritually mature and those who at one point had callings requiring them to be high priests.
Second, I do not think any elders should attend high priest meetings. In my opinion, anyone who is an elder or prospective elder should be attending elders quorum meetings.
Third, just because I think the organisation should be one way does not mean it is that way in practise. For example, I have no idea if your stake presidency reserve high priests groups in your stake for the spiritual mature. In my experience, many elders are advanced simply because of age.
10 May 2007 @ 11:58 | Permalink
Thanks for the response, Kim.
“I have no familarty whatsoever regarding your spiritual maturity.”
Well, you have the background I have given you, which should constitute at least a rough guide.
“First, what I said is that I think high priests should be reserved for those who are spiritually mature and those who at one point had callings requiring them to be high priests.”
Not exactly. You wrote: “[H]igh priests group should be reserved for past bishopric members, high councilmen, stake presidency members, etc and for those who are more spiritually mature.” This wording clearly indicates a belief that “those who are more spiritually mature” should be in the high priest group, regardless of calling. This is further emphasized by your next sentence: “Elders quorum is for people who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level.” Clearly, your wording indicates that those who are not “struggling with the basics and need[ing] to learn on a more fundamental level” should not be in elder’s quorum, which pretty much leaves high priest group.
(My own feelings are parallel to what others have written: Elder’s quorum is for elders, and high priest group is for high priests. No other distinction is necessary or even desirable.)
“Second, I do not think any elders should attend high priest meetings. In my opinion, anyone who is an elder or prospective elder should be attending elders quorum meetings.”
Perhaps I misinterpreted your initial comments. Do you now believe that the 92-year-old elder ought not meet with the high priests?
(I happen to agree with the idea that an elder, whatever his age, should meet with the elder’s quorum. But I see nothing wrong with the stake president inviting a calenderically-enhanced elder to meet with the high priest group.)
“Third, just because I think the organisation should be one way does not mean it is that way in practise. For example, I have no idea if your stake presidency reserve high priests groups in your stake for the spiritual mature. In my experience, many elders are advanced simply because of age.”
A friend from Utah who is a few years older than me was called into his stake president’s office shortly after turning 45 and abruptly told, “You are too old to be in the elder’s quorum, so we’re going to make you a high priest.” Apparently, that is almost a verbatim quote of what he was told. I kept my distaste of such an occurrence to myself, since I could see no benefit in voicing it to my friend.
10 May 2007 @ 12:57 | Permalink
To clarify, by “be in high priest group”, I mean they should be ordained high priests. I was not simply referring to the Sunday meeting.
Absolutely. In my opinion, he should only attend if he is ordained a high priest.
10 May 2007 @ 13:03 | Permalink
“To clarify, by “be in high priest group”, I mean they should be ordained high priests. I was not simply referring to the Sunday meeting.”
So then, if a man is sufficiently “spiritually mature”, he should be ordained a high priest, regardless of calling?
If this is correct, can you provide some doctrinal backing for this opinion — I don’t know what form that might take — or is it merely your own personal feeling about how things ought to be run?
10 May 2007 @ 13:22 | Permalink
Yes. I have no doctrinal basis for this opinion.
10 May 2007 @ 13:27 | Permalink
In that case, while I agree with much of what you’ve written, I disagree with your assignment of high priests as the “spiritually mature group,” even in principle. I see two major flaws:
Attempting to remove the “spiritually mature” from the elder’s quorum would, if successful, impoverish the elder’s quorum and hurt those men, the very ones who most need mentoring. If unsuccessful, it would act as unjust judgment condemning as “spiritually immature” men who ought not to be so condemned.
Who could possibly make such a determination? How could a bishop or stake president decide if a man were “spiritually mature” enough to make the grade? I do not believe that God has given to man any such insight as to be able to judge the spiritual progress or maturity of another in such detail. If this were a doctrinally-directed commandment, then I could certainly believe, at least in principle, that the Spirit would inform the leader when that point was reached; but as we’ve already agreed that no such doctrine exists, I don’t believe the Spirit will (or perhaps can) make any such thing known to a man, be he a bishop or the president of the Church.
Elders and high priests fulfill different functions. As long as young men receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood are not immediately called to leadership positions at the ward or stake level — which is to say, as long as this dispensation lasts — those young men will be ordained elders, and so the high priest group will on average consist of older, more mature men than the elder’s quorum. But this is far from saying that all of the older, more mature men are (or should be) high priests.
My feedback, fwiw.
10 May 2007 @ 13:56 | Permalink
I don’t see why. It’s not like someone wakes up one day and is all of a sudden spiritually mature. In my opinion, spiritual maturity is a spectrum, and everyone is on a point of that spectrum. There is always someone in elders quorum who is less spiritually mature than someone else and more mature than some other person. Advancing someone to the office of high priest because of spiritual maturity does not mean there will no longer be anyone in elders quorum more advanced in spiritual maturity. It’s an ongoing cycle. Spiritually immature elders/priests come in and spiritually mature high priests move out. Everyone is the spiritually immature elder at some point, and (theoretically) will be the spiritually mature high priest at some point. Any given quorum would have everyone in all sorts of stages of spiritual maturity.
The stake presidency ultimately since they decide on Melchizedek priesthood advancement. Since I have never been in a stake presidency, I have no idea what criteria they use to determine if someone has reached that point.
I never agreed to such a premise. What I said was the opinion I created was not based on doctrine. This is not to say one does not exist.
10 May 2007 @ 14:52 | Permalink
I’m 32 and was just called to be High Priests Group Leader in my Ward. I am very concerned about my ability to lead a group of men who are more mature in the gospel than I am. Should be interesting.
26 Jun 2008 @ 23:21 | Permalink
I was the youngest in our quorum when I was called as EQP the first time. Brethren in the quorum were twice my age and had children as old as I was.
You’ll do great, Justin.
27 Jun 2008 @ 06:16 | Permalink
I am a 60 year-old HPG leader and believe me the concerns are the same at any age! When you lead and teach by the spirit, age is not a factor. Read Bro. Fred Babbel’s book On Wings of Faith. You will learn much from it.
27 Jun 2008 @ 10:27 | Permalink
To update:
I have been instructed to attend HP group. I am an elder, not a high priest, and privately, I have no desire to attend the HP group (even though it is a truly excellent group of amazing men).
But this was very clearly NOT phrased as an invitation. It was an instruction. I will obey the instruction given, even if I don’t like it.
But for the record, I don’t like it.
12 Oct 2009 @ 10:54 | Permalink
If you don’t like it, keep going to elders quorum.
12 Oct 2009 @ 12:50 | Permalink
I have been instructed by my stake president (through my bishopric) to attend the high priest group. I will not disobey a direct request from my Priesthood leader. That doesn’t mean I have to like it, just that I’m committed to obeying it.
12 Oct 2009 @ 13:57 | Permalink
Have you asked the stake president why?
12 Oct 2009 @ 14:21 | Permalink
Nope. Not sure what would be accomplished by doing so. Seems like a tacit way of saying, “You screwed up.” The bishopric member who talked to me made it clear that the stake president thought I was “too old” to be meeting with the elders quorum.
I admit I might be playing the drama queen here. I’m rattled by the whole situation. But I do believe it’s my duty to obey my stake president in such matters. He holds the keys to Priesthood in this stake, so if he tells me he wants me to attend the high priest group (or the deacon’s quorum, or Relief Society, or high council meetings), then I will do so.
So then, why am I whining here? Don’t know. I just remembered this conversation from some time ago and thought I’d look it up and add to it. I do appreciate your feedback, Kim.
12 Oct 2009 @ 14:38 | Permalink
Frankly, your stake president needs a lesson in what high priests group is for. It’s certainly not an old boys club.
12 Oct 2009 @ 15:21 | Permalink
Hope your stake president never asks you to jump off a cliff…
News flash… Stake presidents are fallible.
14 Oct 2009 @ 07:32 | Permalink
So, you think “telling a man to jump off a cliff” == “telling a man to meet with a different group”?
The stake president is responsible for all Melchizedek Priesthood holders in his stake. The elders are organized into ward-level quorums, with the quorum president reporting to the stake president. However, the stake president still has direct responsibility over the individual elders. The high priests, all being a part of the high priest quorum (of which he is the president), report to him; nevertheless, each ward is set up with a group leader for the high priests in that ward, and normally all reporting goes through this channel.
In other words, functionally speaking, there is little difference in organization between elders quorums and high priest groups. And all Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the stake report to the stake president, anyway. So it’s really not an earthshaking thing for the stake president to request some elders to report up through the high priest group structure instead. And it is very obviously within the stake president’s authority to make such a request.
I was not happy to be asked to do that, and I’m still not really happy about it. But the suggestion that obeying my stake president in this is equivalent to jumping off a cliff at his command, or that his asking me to do this is somehow equivalent to his asking me to jump off a cliff, is absurd.
If you believe this to be Christ’s kingdom and the stake president to be operating with the keys of his office, I do not see how you can refuse to acknowledge the stake president’s right to do as he sees fit in this or question his wisdom in doing so. And if you don’t believe him to be acting within authority given him by Christ, then why on earth are you even commenting on the topic? You might as well be criticizing witch doctors that poke voodoo dolls.
21 Oct 2009 @ 13:10 | Permalink