Confusing Organizational Structure and terminology

To me PH keys are the answer to the question, “But if everyone has the same priesthood, how do we know who is in charge?”

That simple. Some of it comes from scripture, some from policy. I’d even classify much of what is in D&C as policy that made its way into scripture but we do like to hold it in higher regard; we at least make an attempt to contort our interpretations to accommodate scripture when writing new policy.

Re. #4:

I’ve heard “keys to the ministering of angels” be interpreted to mean that the AP holders are the angels doing the ministering. So less ‘having the eligibility to have angles come down to minister to you’ and more ‘be the angel that ministers to another.’

To me PH keys are the answer to the question, “But if everyone has the same priesthood, how do we know who is in charge?”

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

IMHO, being ordained as a High Priest was more often than not, an “Atta-Boy” achievement. It was given to just about anyone who arrived at a ripe old age, so they wouldn’t feel bad about not being as “chosen” the rest. People like to feel special, just as much as they hate to feel “not special”.

To me PH keys are the answer to the question, “But if everyone has the same priesthood, how do we know who is in charge?”

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

IMHO, being ordained as a High Priest was more often than not, an “Atta-Boy” achievement. It was given to just about anyone who arrived at a ripe old age, so they wouldn’t feel bad about not being as “chosen” the rest. People like to feel special, just as much as they hate to feel “not special”.

I hear that “atta-boy” ordinations aren’t going to happen anymore under the new rules. Read it somewhere, maybe on a discussion forum. Not sure if it’s true or not.

I hear that “atta-boy” ordinations aren’t going to happen anymore under the new rules. Read it somewhere, maybe on a discussion forum. Not sure if it’s true or not.

That’s what I’ve heard. You will not be ordained to the office of high priest unless you accept a calling that absolutely requires it.

This makes me wonder whether the new way of doing things will solve the problem or exacerbate it. In the future being a high priest truly will mean you were more “chosen” than the rest (setting aside that argument for now) whereas now, in some stakes, never being “chosen” could be masked with a social “promotion” (even though it isn’t a promotion but… yeah, culturally it kinda was) to HP.

What’s the historic precedent here? At one time people were ordained to the office of 70 at the stake level. That went away in 1986. What was the fallout? People that were already ordained a 70 continued on in that PH office, they were still 70s but in practice acted as elders. Now generations later no one cares?

But it’s a little different in that people that are in BPs or SPs are still called to be HPs. Meaning in the future whether someone is a HP will be a “tell” that they had some prestigious calling (for the record, I don’t see it this way). But when they are done with the calling they will go back to functioning as an elder but retaining the title. I guess there’s no reason to even know one’s PH office if the quorum is physically united. It may be masked because we won’t be drawing as much distinction between the two as we have in the past.

Bottom line, HPs aren’t better than elders, and neither is better than someone that doesn’t even have the PH but these rankings do occur at even subconscious levels in the culture. Human nature.

I hear that “atta-boy” ordinations aren’t going to happen anymore under the new rules. Read it somewhere, maybe on a discussion forum. Not sure if it’s true or not.

I’ve heard that too, and believe it’s to be the case. Unfortunately, that doesn’t effect all those High Priests already ordained “just because”. High Priests will often feel, at best, different, at worst, superior to the Elders. The Elders likewise will often envy and maybe even resent the High Priests. I think this was partially the case beforehand, but placing them in the same quorum might make things a bit harder. We already have a major problem with position envy/pride within the Church. I think the change is meant to rectify this, by placing most men on somewhat equal footing. Long-term, I could see this turning out well, but short-term it’ll be a challenge.

So, it’s as I said, they had to come up with a custom meaning for “keys to the ministering of angels” by defining living human beings as angels. Why not just say “keys to ministering others?”. And even then, that’s wrong because it’s the person called to lead your quroum that has those keys — not the rank and file. Sure we have personal judgment, and can be led by the spirit to counsel somebody unofficially, but using the “key” term only makes it confusing.

They’re redefining it for a more secular, down-to-earth generation. Back in JS’ time, claims of visions, seeing angels, speaking with Christ, even OUTSIDE the Church were very common. Having the “Keys to the Ministering of Angels”, literally meant having Heavenly beings sent directly from God to help you. These days, many are left wondering why, even after all their faith and diligence, they have never been visited by Angels. I believe some redefining and reinterpreting was done to explain this.

Yeah, I believe we have reinterpreted that (and most) scripture in order to better fit our lived experiences.

I will say the “keys” thing bothers me because it seems entirely made up yet we base many of our traditions on “keys.” When I hear keys I think “permission.”

Do you have teenagers by chance?