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?
tortdog,
You are an elder and a lawyer. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth about we HPs being far superior to elders. :)
What other conclusion can she draw? LOL!!!!!
Well, you know her statement does suggest what you write, Larry. If this is true:
Couple that with Mary’s statement and it must mean that that high priests are all perfect, and have (quoting her) “no spiritual growth left to do.”
Should I inform the elders in our quorum that once they have stopped “struggling with the basics” and learned those things of a “more fundamental level” that they should expect their ordinations as high priests?
I move that we extend the number of elders to say 192, with those in the upper half being those who have arrived at enlightenment, but have not yet reached the stature of those in HP’s. :>) LOL!!!
That’s all well and good, so long as we don’t let any elders mingle with the high priests who have no spiritual growth left to do.
Well, we will have to segregate. Perhaps we could move the HP’s into the richer neighbourhoods. For those who can’t afford it we could subsidize them.
The elders could be moved to the poorer neighbourhoods until they attain sufficient humility to associate with those of higher standing – perhaps as go-fers. That might be OK.
That’s how it works in our ward, Larry. No elders live south of 16 Avenue (not counting LCC residences). And the one elder who decided to buck the trend and move south of 16 Avenue was made a counsellor in the bishopric last month.
Some people just get it right.
Unfortunately, someone forgot to apply the rule properly when I was made a HP 25 years ago. I will look for remedy though. Perhaps tortdog can represent me and see that I get my just desserts. (And it better be more than banana cream pie). That will help determine if he really has the humility necessary. He can become my go-fer. . . Works for me. LOL!
I didn’t say that. Nor do I think it. Knowing plenty of high priests who have plenty of spiritual growth left to do. As well as knowing plenty of elders who have plenty of spiritual growth left to do too.
JM: :)
tortdog, you are reading more into Kim’s comment then what he is saying. He is not saying that everyone who is in EQ is struggling, however people who are struggling with the basics shouldn’t automatically be put into high priests quorum due to their age.
Point in fact, my husband is an elder and definitely is not struggling with the basics etc etc. Yet he is an elder and quite happy to be there. He is able to serve his fellow brethren in his capacity as EQ president, something which he wouldn’t be able to do as well as a HP.
Please explain “spiritual growth do do?â€
Are you saying Kim could not be EP if he was a HP or if he was a HP that he would not serve his fellow brethren as well as he does as an Elder?
Tortdog, I don’t see that any more offensive than someone saying “CTR 6 is for children who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level before they move on to CTR 7”.
Um.. yes. Well I suppose technically he could be EQP as a HP, but it is unlikely to happen since there are plenty of elders to fill his shoes. And sure he could serve his fellow elders as a HP, but not in the same way as he can as an elder. He’s more directly involved as an elder to be able to do so.
JM. The MP quorums do not exist to denote a ranking or progression in the gospel or spirituality.
Do you agree with that?
No, I don’t.
The Melchizedek priesthood quorums only serve as organizational units for priesthood offices. Their purpose is to promote order.
Now, if you want to talk of priesthood offices, then I would say that the ‘ranking’ of Melchizedek priesthood offices is no different than any ranking in the Aaronic priesthood offices.
Do you feel that there is a rank or progression associated with the Aaronic priesthood offices?
Regarding my last post, I meant to say that “Yes, I do” agree.
Any discussion of rank would fall under a discussion of priesthood offices, not quorums.
There is a rank in the authorization of ordinances that can be performed, but not in the power of the priesthood, nor in the spirituality of the man.
Kim wrote:
I disagree with that viewpoint (as written). I would state:
To me, it’s that simple. Spirituality should not determine which quorum a person belongs to, because all men should be spiritual.
Do we “demote” a high priest if he falls in his spirituality (as we know is possible with all men)?
I believe tortdog is saying he disagrees with the ideal HP are more spiritual than Elders.
If so, then I agree with tortdog on this point. A Church calling does not make a man more spiritual than another man.
Is assuming a HP is more spiritual than an Elder some kind of false doctrine? I mean false tradition.
If you disagree, do you have a scripture to back up why HP are more spiritual?
I know what he is saying, he has already said it several times. No, a church calling does not make a man (or a woman) more spiritual than someone else. However, he (and you it seems) are missing Kim’s point. His point is that elders should not automatically become high priests when they reach a certain age, if they have not yet attained more spiritual maturity and understanding of the Gospel.
I don’t think anyone here is saying high priests are more spiritual than anyone else. I don’t think spirituality was the point anyway, but rather understanding. Nor does it mean elders don’t have greater understanding. For example, my husband has a pretty good understanding and definitely much more than a basic knowledge of the gospel, however that doesn’t mean he should automatically become a high priest. The offices of the priesthood are not (in spite of what you might think George/Bill) hierarchic as far as being more important than the other. They have differing responsibilities.
It was part of an ongoing discussion, Mary. If you do not want to be part of it, no one is forcing you to post.
On that note, Mary, I agree with your last post.
I wasn’t complaining about being “forced” to post.
So if men have attained a certain age and they have spiritual maturity and understanding of the Gospel should the men be ordained to the office of High Priest?
If you agree with ordaining men at a certain age, what age would that be? 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70?
If you believe the office of HP should only be reserved for those who hold a certain calling, then on a ward level, I am aware of 6 callings about every 5 years where a man would be ordained a HP. Some wards the number of men who might be ordained a HP could be as low as o to 1 in 5 years.
If you believe this, then does it mean there are usually 6 or less men worthy to be a HP every 5 years in every ward worldwide?
The 6 callings on a ward level I am aware of are:
If you believe age and spiritual maturity should factor in, then should there be a guideline for bishops and SP to follow for when a man should be ordained a HP?
Or should it be as it is now with no guidelines and left to the whims of local leaders?
I don’t see why. And I don’t have an opinion on that one way or another. I also don’t believe age has much at all to do with it.
I have a question for the females. If RS was divided into 2 groups, those who had been RS Presidents and those who had not would it make a diffeence to you?
Second part of the question. If you were not part of the RSP group (never asked to be a RS President) but forced to attend the non RSP group which is for people who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level and you have been a member for 50 years, how would a statement like this affect you?
Would you resent the suggestion that you still struggle with the basics?
I actually find this statement or tradition to be very insulting to oldermen who have not been asked to serve in one of the 6 slots.
RS and the priesthood are completely different. In RS we don’t hold offices. This example doesn’t make much sense as the RS president group would be rather small.
Mary & tortdog,
Pullleeez. Us old guys are much wiser, more knowledgeable, humble, and spiritual. If you don’t believe us, just ask us – we’ll tell you.
Now, where did I leave my mind…? :>)
The HP Group of actual HP (remove older Elders) is usually a rather small group at least in many wards.
I agree with you that it doesn’t make much sense. So why do it?
Because high priest is an office in the priesthood, and besides patriarch, all offices are part of a quorum.
Kim: Where I come from, we call that kind of answer beating around the bush. Are you running for office?
Do you still stand by the words you wrote 15 months ago that HP are more spiritually mature and Elders struggle with the gospel and ?
To be fair here is what you wrote:
I really think that high priests group should be reserved for past bishopric members, high councilmen, stake presidency members, etc and for those who are more spiritually mature. Elders quorum is for people who are still struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level.
I would like to know if you would keep the same wording or if you would say things differently 15 months later and over 500 comments on this topic.
It’s not beating around the bush. I directly addressed a specific question you posed.
If my position had changed, I would have commented as such.
Kim: Do the elders in the quorum you preside over know that you write that you believe men in elders quorums are struggling with the basics and need to learn things on a more fundamental level? This sounds pretty arrogant to me.
Do you believe you will be a high priest and this thought justifies you to look down on fellow church members?
You have some interesting views regarding religion. You have written you do not believe Noah’s flood covered the earth like the Bible says. You do not believe the Nephites were large enough to fill America as Mormon tradition has taught. For doctrines you do not believe, you call them traditions and dismiss them. Do you consider yourself to be superior to other men and deserve to be a high priest.
Does your stake president know you believe these things? Are you worthy to be an EQP?
I doubt it.
Ever? I think it’s likely.
I don’t look down on fellow church members. Unless you have forgotten, I am in elders quorum as well. I, too, am struggling with understanding the gospel. Why they put me in as elders quorum president is beyond me; I certainly don’t think I did a bang-up job the first time. I don’t see how I am looking down on any of my fellow church members. If anything, I am looking up at them.
No.
No.
What things?
Well, I am worthy to go to the temple, so I can assume I am worthy enough for my current calling.
This thread is now open. I edited out everything that was not related to the post. It may seem a bit disjointed to start with.
Curious as to why you would reopen a thread as opposed to starting a new one with a similar topic.
I don’t see the point in opening a new post on the same topic.
Assumption – All older men (in Kim Siever’s Ward) who are Elders are not active.
What is the average age of the older Elders that are still active?
Is there a noticable age where men seem to become less active if they remain in the EQ as opposed to becoming a HP?
Is there a wider Elder/Age problem in the Church or is it just limited to Kim Siever’s ward?
In my ward the age of active Elders over 40 is small and active HP over 40 is large. We have lots of inactive men over the age of 40 who are Elders and yet they were very active when they were under 40.
I am aware of a ward where many of the inactive males (over the age of 40) were “promoted” to HP and after being “promoted” they started attending church again with their families.
In our quorum this Sunday, we had about eight elders in their 20s, four in their 30s, and three in their 40s.
I would assume, based on my experience and what I know of some of the older elders who are not active, is that they have not been active for a very long time, some of them shortly after becoming an elder. For most, if not all, of them they did not become less active after reach a certain age.
How many total elders (active & inactive) do you have in the different age groups?
For example:
20’s 8 active 4 inactive 12 total
30’s 4 active 8 inactive 12 total
40’s 3 active 9 inactive 12 total
50’s 0 active 12 inactive 12 total
60 0 active 12 inactive 12 total
Total 15 active 45 inactive 60 total
Why would older men become less mature in the gospel as they grow older? Perhaps there is an answer why older men quit attending church unless they are made a HP.
I don’t have those stats with me.
I don’t know that older men become less mature in the gospel. As I said in my previous comment, many of the less active ones in our quorum have not been active for decades (some not since they were in their early 20s).
Perhaps you can post the stats when you have them.
I haven’t seen that this is the case at all, or the reason and haven’t seen Kim suggest this either. Why would you think this was the case?
Recently we had about 3 older elders in our quorum who never attended quorum meeting. They weren’t less active per se, but had nothing to do with the quorum (walked the hallway, left early, etc…). At the last stake conference, they were made High Priests and now they magically attend all their quorum meetings, etc…
That’s just sad. Hopefully, they weren’t made HP just to get them out of the halls.
Sounds to me like we have a SP who needs to re-read Alma 13…
Is it necessary to attend EQ before one is ordained a HP?
Is JM second guessing his Stake President?
Does JM know some reason why these three men should not have been made HP? If so, why did you not object during Stake Conference?
My guess is that JM’s Bishop recommended the three men to be made HP.
If you are ordained an elder… all signs point to yes.
It is decidedly so
Better not tell you now
Ask again later (I guess I should show up for Stake Conference… (feel free to begin ad hominem attacks))
Most likely
Pewsitter
You sound awfully familiar. Do you have another username you use sometimes? Just curious.
I am not aware that attending EQ is mandatory.
No attacks from me. I am not aware that attending Stake Conference is mandatory. I am also not aware that it is mandatory to snitch on other people.
Do you think it would be a good thing to ordain worthy males to the office of HP after some number of years of activity? What would be the number of years or age?
No.
Do you think it would be a good thing to de-ordain unworthy males from the office of HP after some number of years of inactivity?
Guess it depends on your definition of unworthy and inactive. It’s possible to have an unworthy active priesthood holder and a worthy inactive priesthood holder. One doesn’t necessarily mean the other.