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?
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!
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.
I completely agree, and this specific thought is what prompted my post.
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?
Which was the point of this post.
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.
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.
Our elders quorum must be an anomoly.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Correct. But this is my opinion only. I don’t claim to be right. It’s just a theory (like most comments here).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There are several EQP’s that write on this thread, are there any HPGL’s that have any thougths?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It’s not what’s in the manuals. It’s how you discuss it.
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?
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.
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.
We have a large number of seniors in our ward, and many of them are high priests.
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.
I still find that so misguided and insulting.
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? :>)
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.
JM
Yes, Kim knows that.
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?
Mary,
You are the Aaron to Kim’s Moses. ;-)