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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…that is to say, desirous not to be identified as one who stands against it.
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.
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.
This blog started nearly three years ago (July 2003).
Or are you referring to this specific post?
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?
“[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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
Gotcha. OK, I agree that we agree. :)
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.
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?
“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.
“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.
“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 yearsâ€
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.
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.
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.
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
Bill: “I wish I was wrong.”
It’s so nice to see wishes granted. :)