Comments on: Elders and High Priests

By: Sean McLaughlin

Sean McLaughlin — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:54:51 +0000

It’s okay for you to figure this out. Be obedient, and maybe ask a few questions.

By: Sean McLaughlin

Sean McLaughlin — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:53:33 +0000

I think you are quite right just obeying what your leaders have asked you to do. I think it might have been handled a little better by them, I know there are a number of 40 somethings who don’t feel “that old” while others take it (even as Elders not ordained as high priests) as somewhat a badge of honor to be in High Priests group associated with those who have held leadership positions.
In my own case, I’m 51 and talked with both my EQ pres and HP group leader, they indicated for me to just do what my heart directs me to do–I’m welcome either place. That feels nice! and I’m ready to move on to HP

By: Sean McLaughlin

Sean McLaughlin — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:49:56 +0000

I am surprised your leadership is going at it that way. Unless you are a 70 year old Elder or something…but frankly, you should just go when YOU feel ready to go, or, if you get a leadership calling in the ward or stake in which you must be ordained a High Priest, then, of course, it’s time to go. The church has a policy in place of letting the “older men” meet with the High priests if they desire and of course talk with the Bishop or HP group leader and their Elder’s quorum president. Depending on ward and priesthood populations of course and what is determined is needed priesthood wise…

By: Sean McLaughlin

Sean McLaughlin — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:46:11 +0000

I can appreciate what this brother is saying but it’s a bit heavyhanded. This is not a discussion of temple ordinances or anything that can’t be discussed in a public forum…besides, most of those interested at all would be generally LDS anyway.
My take is, situations can be very fluid. In a small ward vs. a large ward, with a large population of priesthood or just a few, the dynamics change accordingly. There is no hard or fast “set rule” in the church as far as when Elders can join with the High Priests meeting. My deal is, at 51, I’m feeling a little old in Elder’s Quorum now (I am the oldest actually). Informal discussions with my leaders have pointed to “do what I feel I should do”–either stay with the Elders or move on to High Priests. Other wards and stakes may have different dynamics and needs in leadership. That’s it!

By: HubOf1DadOf6

HubOf1DadOf6 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:10:14 +0000

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.

By: JM

JM — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:32:37 +0000

Hope your stake president never asks you to jump off a cliff...

News flash... Stake presidents are fallible.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:21:40 +0000

Frankly, your stake president needs a lesson in what high priests group is for. It’s certainly not an old boys club.

By: HubOf1DadOf6

HubOf1DadOf6 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:38:47 +0000

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.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:21:12 +0000

Have you asked the stake president why?

By: HubOf1DadOf6

HubOf1DadOf6 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:57:18 +0000

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.