- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
One of my pet peeves in the church is the division of the Elders and High Priests. It is not like the Aaronic priesthood where the divide is based upon age (in my opinion it should be). I remember when I was a fairly new Elder off my mission, married and in a wonderful ward. Things were running smoothly, we had a great Elder’s Quorum President (EQP) who had awesome activities, service projects, and was very organized and made you feel that you were part of a team and something great. This all ended however, when the bishop called him to be one of his counselors in the bishopric. The EQP then became a high priest never to mingle with the Elders Quorum and then we were in a Quorum that took a year to even compare to his organization and dynamic. I asked him the (EQP) how it was to be a high priest and in the bishopric, and he replied, “I don’t really do much yet, just help the bishop here and there.” I was really saddened. I almost felt like his service was better appreciated in the Elder’s quorum. He was only 35. I saw another man who was a really good spiritual EQP, he was much older, probably about 48-50. He served valiantly and was much appreciated. He was released, but was not “promoted” to high priest, was overlooked for the new bishop calling which everyone thought he was gonna get. He has about three married children and is a grandfather, but still an Elder. None of this makes sense to me. My Father wasn’t made a high priest until he was well over 50, and didn’t serve in a bishopric until he retired. I’m just frustrated with the whole distinction. Shouldn’t there only be one high priest in the Church and that’s the Prophet. Why are apostles still called “Elder” yet they are high priests? This is so confusing. I like the young high priests that are between the ages of 30-50. I wish they were Elders they could teach us so much. Yet, they have similar jobs and life experiences with the rest of the Elders who didn’t qualify for either a bishopric or high council calling. There is a gross divide here that should be crossed, but seldom is if ever. What’s up with the division? The Priesthood is divided in the church according to a “Constructivist model.” I used this term because it is what is physically obvious according to a separate grouping and of high priests group and Elder’s Quorum. Each have separate presidents. The high priests president is actually the Stake President, whereas the Elder’s Quourm has an EQP. They meet in separate meetings on Sundays. Also comparatively to the Relief Society. The Relief Society is not divided by older women versus younger, at least not on a constructivist model.
I have made a vow. Since I am disqualified from ever being a bishop due to divorce, I hope I can be the oldest Elder in the Church I don’t want to become a high priest until I am 65. I want to be an Elder. Isn’t it the same priesthood overall? Now that is even more confusing.
My last little comment is this one: One Sunday I was going over how a literal descendant of Aaron has a right to the bishopric, but since that would rarely happen in the church, a man would need to become a high priest in order to receive the ordination as bishop. So, two high priests were trying to tell me how that wasn’t true. I said, yes it is every bishop that I know was ordained as a high priest as well as designated as a bishop. I almost lost it. Read section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants!
The sad thing was; one of those high priests is one between the ages of 35-50, who looks like an Elder has a similar job to what most members of the quorum have, and has kids the same ages as other Elders. In my opinion, when the GAs let us know in priesthood conference how the priesthood is not fully operational-it has much to do with the great divide between Elders and high priests in the church.
Don’t be too sure you’re off the hook. Our last bishop was divorced. Personally, I think this is the biggest administrative waste in the church. It basically duplicates all the PH callings. RS is all just one big happy family, age 18-88. So what makes the men so special? There was a book I read about stages of life for men. The metaphor was to a kingdom. Young boys are “Pages.” Teenagers are “Squires.” Men aged 20-40 are “Knights,” and older men are “Kings.” It was to help women understand men. Not sure I buy it, but the EQ / HP model is consistent with what the analogy said about men in these age groups. Elders are action-oriented, want to be doing things, are still expanding their careers, and need to feel like they are needed (rescuing damsels and others). High Priests are “mature,” and want to be revered for their opinions but not to have to get off their butts and do stuff. They would like to be sought out for their wise counsel, but want to leave the action to the young bucks. Or so that theory went.
Even so, I think it’s kind of ridiculous that the men can’t just all be in one organization.
I’ve served in a number of elders quorum presidencies over the course of my adulthood and I have to agree with jamison. If elders were consistently men from 18 to 45 say and high priests consistently 45 and up (or whatever age ranges you wish to use), it would make some sense. The elders would be the ones responsible for service projects (wood cutting, yard work, snow shoveling, etc.) and the older high priests would do whatever it is high priests do (don’t know as I am an elder). In our ward, however, we have elders who are in their late 50s (one I believe is pushing 60) and we have high priests as young as 28 because they were called into bishoprics during their student ward days. It makes for a mish mash of types in the quorums and means that the young high priests are never asked to do anything physically rigorous when it comes to service projects and the older elders may feel compelled to participate in activities they are not suited for. Let’s add one more fact. In our ward (and I think this is church policy but I’m not sure) high priests hometeach the single sisters (young and old). One rationale would be that a 70 year old brother is less likely to develop an inappropriate relationship with a 30 year old single mother. But what if a significant number of high priests are in their 30s?
And let’s not forget that status within the ward is inextricably tied up with the priesthood you possess. The idea that it is “all the same priesthood” is cold comfort for some 65 year old elder trying to fit in with a bunch of 20 something and 30 something elders still wrestling with babies or a 30 year old high priest attempting to find something in common with men in their 60s and 70s. I know their are doctrinal reasons for the separation but I sometimes wonder if some of these policies shouldn’t be viewed with a more practical eye.
tradition – and the fact that two Priesthood offices exist – and the different needs of the different ages (as Hawk’s comment says) If I had control over it and the power to really mess things up, possibly, through experimentation, I would try a division by age only – up to 50 and over 50. I know that still would cause some issues (
like the old farts never hearing new ideas from the youngsters – which is a SERIOUS, SERIOUS issue, imo), but I would be willing to try it. If that led to a calcification among the old guard and an entrenchment of traditional views, I would go back to the current system in a heartbeat.
Old-Timer stated: Quote:(like the old farts never hearing new ideas from the youngsters – which is a SERIOUS, SERIOUS issue, imo), but I would be willing to try it. If that led to a calcification among the old guard and an entrenchment of traditional views, I would go back to the current system in a heartbeat.
If that is the reason, besides there not being enough high priests to call would make sense. Young minds need to be intermingle with the old guys, but only allowing “a chosen few” into the ranks of high priest that are not really interacting with the Elder’s quorum is quite strange. Also another thing that is not policy, but seems like it has become a traditional policy: why do Ward Mission Leaders and ward missionaries mainly, and almost always come from the Elder’s Quorum? I know this ain’t policy, but I feel like the old people who are retired have more time on their hands, and people like me are having a hard enough time providing for our families to go worry about teaching the gospel to other people at times that are very inconvenient. Almost every ward I have been in the Ward mission is exclusive to Elders and maybe a few sisters, but rarely high priests. IMO the best idea is call a high priest and his wife as the ward mission leaders. I’ve seen this happen on a rare occasion and it takes care of having to call the retired people on a mission to Timbuktu spending their kids’ inheritance to do essentially the same thing.
jamison, I agree with the time-available issue and Ward Mission Leaders – but the calling has been split pretty much 50/50 between Elders and High Priests in the wards I’ve attended. I also think it’s important sometimes to have a younger voice in that calling, but it ultimately comes down to the individual and not the specific Priesthood office. I’d vote for all to meet together on Sunday, all my friends are in Elders Quorum. Some of it is tradition and some of it is policy. Small units like branches or small wards look a lot different in how things are done than the big Utah wards. Older elders are often put with the high priests group. The high priests group is also responsible for the prospective elders but the PEs are often put with the elders. Having the high priests responsible for the missionary work sounds good because they have the time if they are retired but they often don’t have the energy because of their age.
I’ve often heard it said that high priest is an administrative calling. Being a high priest does not give one any more authority than being an elder. It’s all in the calling, not the priesthood office held.
jamison wrote:One of my pet peeves in the church is the division of the Elders and High Priests. It is not like the Aaronic priesthood where the divide is based upon age (in my opinion it should be)…The EQP then became a high priest never to mingle with the Elders Quorum…I was really saddened. I almost felt like his service was better appreciated in the Elder’s quorum. He was only 35…My Father wasn’t made a high priest until he was well over 50, and didn’t serve in a bishopric until he retired.
I’m just frustrated with the whole distinction…I think it’s almost like the way that if someone isn’t really satisfied with their job sometimes simply giving them a fancy title will help them feel a little better about it even if not much has really changed. Basically, “high priest” sounds like a higher level than elder and elder sounds higher than priest so it gives the impression/illusion that you are making some real progress. Also, it looks like these divisions serve the purpose of creating more required callings with all the teachers/leaders of all these sub-groups.
Personally, I think they should combine many of these groups and meetings not just Elder’s Quorum and High Priests but also many of the separate classes for primary and young men/women where there are almost as many teachers as there are students nowadays even in large Utah wards. Of course, the problem is that if many of these members didn’t have a calling that requires them to attend these meetings then it would be easier for them to stay home whenever they don’t really feel like going to church so then the Church would probably have to find other ways to get people to show up or live with reduced overall attendance.
Why the divide of Relief Society vs Priesthood? DevilsAdvocate wrote:Personally, I think they should combine many of these groups and meetings not just Elders Quorum and High Priests but many of the separate classes for primary and young men/women where there are almost as many teachers as there are students nowadays even in large Utah wards.
Don’t get me started on Primary. That is a sore spot for me. I will restrain myself in saying that I think many innovations could be made to make it more enticing/enjoyable/uplifting for the kids.
But for the Elders vs. High Priests, I agree with Ray about tradition. Sometimes we have superfluous/ambiguous priesthood titles. Sometimes these titles get redefined or phased out (I am thinking of the offices of Seventy [which used to be much more common] and Presiding Patriarch) and sometimes not.
bumping this since it has come up again!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.