Not Lovin the term Elders Quorum

[Anonymous]

Although these changes are all very positive and practical, I question the use of Elders Quorum as the name of the combined priesthood quorum. I like the name The Priesthood Quorum as there are multiple offices in the priesthood, and to name a combined quorum by one of those offices is a misfit.

I hope they will change that. It’s not a thorn in my side, or pebble in my shoe, and I want to be supportive of the changes being made. But I am surprised they are calling it the Elder’s quorum.

I would rather the president be the Priesthood Quorum President. I will probably use that term in conversation just to see if it takes.

It will be interesting to go to church next week. Decent sized numbers bring an energy to any situation — a classroom, a meeting, a group — so strengthening the numbers this way is interesting and valuable.

I will be interested in hearing whether numbers boosted as a result of this change.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, huh… that is interesting. “Elder” is both a generic term and a specific office, but as used here, it is the generic term. “Quorum” is a specific organization. Using the generic term “Elder” with the specific term “Quorum” is a bit weird.

I guess one way to think of it is that “Elder” is used for all MP holders with the exception of anyone in the position of “President”. Thus, “Elder Uchtdorf”, even though he is an Apostle. I’m pretty sure in the old days when we had a specific office of Seventy, that they were also called “Elder”.

I will say that the Church’s priesthood layers are complex and poorly understood. Bishop is an office in the AP, but all Bishops are also ordained High Priests. The EQP has always and will still report directly to the SP, but will be directed by the Bishop for ministering? Each stake has one HP Quorum and the President is the SP. Ordinations in the MP must be approved by the whole stake, AP in the ward. Seventy is an office in the MP, yet all Seventies are HP (now-a-days).

Parenthetically, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Hedrickite) has always held that JS lost it around the time he introduces offices higher than Elder in the MP.

[Anonymous]

I think the reason for it being called the elders quorum (and likewise retaining the high priest quorum although much smaller) is because they are trying to dance around the D&C. There are specific things mentioned in the D&C about the offices and quorums and they’re trying to make it look like we’re following all the rules. To do that they’ve had to jigsaw some things. Like you SD, it’s not a thorn or a pebble, but I think I would be fine with calling it the Melchizedek priesthood quorum, D&C be damned.

If you think all of that can get confusing, try to figure out what the high council is supposed to be and do based only on the D&C. I don’t know if this is because of similar old changes that were made, but it’s very confusing between the “standing high council” and the “traveling high council” and both seem to be used to also refer to the Q12 at least some of the time. I can foresee a time where high councils are eliminated, but the biggest downside to elimination of them is more work for the stake presidency.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think the reason for it being called the elders quorum (and likewise retaining the high priest quorum although much smaller) is because they are trying to dance around the D&C. There are specific things mentioned in the D&C about the offices and quorums and they’re trying to make it look like we’re following all the rules.

I am feeling more and more that they need to stop relying on this revelatory approach when they come out with something new — something new that should have changed years and years ago if they were really listening and scanning progress with humility and a commitment to organizational learning. At one time, I heard they changed the Handbooks years ago, and one GA said this was revelation. Someone high up corrected him and said “no, it’s just our best understanding of how to do things at this time”. Much easier to change that stuff than revelation.

It only boxes them into corners. Use it sparingly. I know it’s tough to get volunteers to do what you want them to do, but these revelatory approaches make it harder to adapt and change — and admit when you make a mistake.

When they came out with the new curriculum for youth, I felt like I was watching the Emporer’s new clothes. Here, as an experienced educator, I’d been bemoaning the one-way, lecture driven, scripted lesson approach for years. I wanted an interactive, adaptive curriculum that responds to people’s needs. Like we do in professional circles, but no — correlation and lack of trust in teachers squelched that. Then they came out with the new curriculum — primarily online, technology enabled, interactive, adaptive. And everyone was going on how modern the church was, how revelation as guiding us.

I felt like I was watching the Emporer was parading around in his underwear. The pride, the boasting about how wonderful revelation is to reveal this new curricular approach. I sat there thinking — didn’t they just implement something we’ve been doing in mainstream education for a decade (curriculum on the web) or decades (favoring interactive teaching rather than lectures)???? I felt the guy at the front was making a fool of himself!

I will never ask a GA why we call the EQ the Elders Quorum when it is composed of multiple offices in the priesthood. You’ll get this grandiose explanation during the “teaching moment” you provided, when in any other organization they’d say “Whoops, good point, let’s change that”. And then get kudos for listening to the membership and being democratic.

In our church, they can’t do that. Anyway, I’m gonna let that one go.

I’ll call it EQ. The Priesthood Quorum could be confused with an Aaronic Priesthood quorum. I may call it the MPQ — Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum sometimes….although that confuses it with the new, smaller, higher up HP Quorum. Perhaps that reason for it — there is a HPQ at the top of the Stake, so you can’t call the Ward the Priesthood Quorum as this does not distinguish it from the HP Quorum in the Stake.

So, go with Elders. quite honestly, there is a case for eliminating the office of High Priest entirely. Everyone is an elder. When called to a position they service on a Stake MP Executive Committee for their office. When not in the stake callings, they serve as an Elder in the Ward Priesthood Quorum. Done, simple.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I’ll call it EQ. The Priesthood Quorum could be confused with an Aaronic Priesthood quorum. I may call it the MPQ — Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum sometimes….although that confuses it with the new, smaller, higher up HP Quorum. Perhaps that reason for it — there is a HPQ at the top of the Stake, so you can’t call the Ward the Priesthood Quorum as this does not distinguish it from the HP Quorum in the Stake.

So, go with Elders. quite honestly, there is a case for eliminating the office of High Priest entirely. Everyone is an elder. When called to a position they service on a Stake MP Executive Committee for their office. When not in the stake callings, they serve as an Elder in the Ward Priesthood Quorum. Done, simple.

Not being argumentative, just a couple points.

1) higher up HP Quorum I think one of the points they were trying to make was that HP are not “higher up.” I know a few who think they are, and I’m betting those few are going to have some problems with this transition. It was explicitly stated that all MP holders have the same power/authority as any other MP holder. It was also explicitly stated that it was hoped that the term “advancing in the priesthood” (specifically referring to the MP) would not be used in the future.

2) The stake PEC, like wards PECs, no longer exists and the stake PEC will now be called what almost everybody already calls it – high council meetings. Those high priests who are serving in the SP, HC, B’ric, or as patriarch are part of the high priests quorum – which I think is part of the dance around the D&C. I do think it a bit interesting that that only bishop’s counselors were mentioned, not bishops. (FWIW, my current b’ric doesn’t seem to understand their role in attending AP meetings, including the bishop himself.)

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

it’s very confusing between the “standing high council” and the “traveling high council”

The Standing High Council was the Supreme Court of High Councils. There was a High Council formed in Zion, then later another in Kirtland, but the one in Zion had oversight over the second. Later, still, when Stakes of Zion were formed, they each had their own Standing High Council, but these were all subservient to the Standing High Council in Zion. So, as an example, appeals in Church Courts from the stakes were handled in Zion. Zion didn’t operate as a Stake, but rather as a unique entity with all the Stakes supporting Zion.

Soon after the creation of the Standing High Council in Zion a Traveling High Council was created to cover all the unincorporated areas of the Church. Effectively, this made the Traveling High Council the overseer of the mission field. This soon came to be called the Quorum of the Twelve.

It’s interesting to note that at the beginning, the Traveling HC was under the control of the Standing High Council in Zion. Later, these two bodies had equal authority operating under the direction of the FP. But after the expulsion from Missouri, the Q12 rose to more prominence. This is probably (from only my own guessing) due to the fact that the Q12 was the body of charismatic missionaries bringing in thousands of converts, while the standing HCs were more like administrators (no offence, DJ). I mean, think of the people in the Q12 at the time, BY, HCK, JT, PPP, OP, OH, WW. These were heavy hitters. But who were the members of the Standing High Council? I couldn’t name one off the top of my head. Additionally, with the exodus from Missouri, the concept of Zion took a serious hit. The presiding Standing High Council was reformed in Nauvoo, but BY, who had led the Saints out of Missouri, and the Twelve were now clearly in their ascendancy.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

1) higher up HP Quorum I think one of the points they were trying to make was that HP are not “higher up.” I know a few who think they are, and I’m betting those few are going to have some problems with this transition. It was explicitly stated that all MP holders have the same power/authority as any other MP holder. It was also explicitly stated that it was hoped that the term “advancing in the priesthood” (specifically referring to the MP) would not be used in the future.

Bad use of language on my part. I meant higher up in that they are a stake quorum, not a ward quorum. Not higher up in that they have some greater priesthood or status. The fact that it’s the same priesthood and rights and powers etcetera begs the question of why have the HP office at all. In the Aaronic Priesthood, it makes sense as there are progressively more responsible duties attached, but not in the EQ-HP duet.

[Anonymous]

I thought at first Inwould be in the Stake High Priests Group, since I am the Executive Secretary, but I am pretty sure I heard someone say secretaries and clerks would be in the Ward Elders Quorum. I like that positioning for myself better, since I like to meet with more people.

I also think a point being missed is that the Bishop and his counselors now are not affiliated with the ward level Quorum, which means they can attend to their duties during the 3rd hour, I assume. This could reduce their non-meeting commitment times significantly. I love that aspect.

[Author]

Posts