Question about Becoming a High Priest?

[bytor2112]

The higher up the office the greater the responsibility of righteousness

How so? Same Priesthood covenant...same requirements for Exaltation. So, not a greater responsibility of righteousness. interestingly enough....high Priests are Elders and the EQP holds "Keys" while the High Priest Group Leader does not.

[Vort]

The higher up the office the greater the responsibility of righteousness and what one may participate in.

This is not quite true. As an elder, a man may participate in any ordinance and receive any Priesthood blessing that God gives to men, up to and including membership in the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of those men who enter into this highest order of the Priesthood do so as elders, not as high priests.

The office of an Elder is not sufficient to perform sealings within the Temple, but the office of a high priest may officiate in sealings.

Again, this is not so. The office of high priest confers no authority to officiate in sealings. That is done only through the sealing power, which is bestowed separately. I believe that it is the case that only high priests receive the sealing power. Perhaps this is what you meant.

A Patriarch is within the office of a High Priest, thus signifying again that the office of an High Priest is higher than the office of an Elder.

The Priesthood office of patriarch is distinct from that of high priest. Along with the offices of elder, seventy, and apostle, they constitute all the offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood (or at least all that have been given to us).

[Vort]

the EQP holds "Keys" while the High Priest Group Leader does not.

As do the deacons quorum president, the teachers quorum president, the priests quorum president (aka the bishop), and the high priests quorum president (aka the stake president). The group leader does not hold keys of presidency because he does not preside.

[NeuroTypical]

This thread needs more jokes. I'll start:

----------

One Sunday, the bishop was called into the High Priest Group meeting, where he was given the sad news that one of the HP's had just died. He looked up and down the rows of HP's, and asked "which one?"

[bytor2112]

As do the deacons quorum president, the teachers quorum president, the priests quorum president (aka the bishop), and the high priests quorum president (aka the stake president). The group leader does not hold keys of presidency because he does not preside.

Although....I believe he does Preside in the event that the Bishopric is not in Sacrament meeting.

[Vort]

Although....I believe he does Preside in the event that the Bishopric is not in Sacrament meeting.

He presides in the sense that he is the "ranking" high priest at the meeting, but not in the sense that he holds keys of Priesthood leadership over a quorum.

In the same vein, if no member of either the bishopric or the high priest group leadership (or stake presidency or higher-level leadership) were present, the most senior high priest would take charge of the meeting. If no high priests at all were present, the elders quorum president would take charge; absent him, his senior counselor present would do so. If no high priests and no elders quorum presidency members were available, the senior elder would take charge. Absent any Melchizedek Priesthood, I believe the first assistant in the priests quorum (or, if he is not there, the second assistant) is required take charge. If none of the above are available, the senior priest takes charge.

If you don't have at least a priest available, you cannot administer the sacrament, so there cannot be a sacrament meeting.

Corrections welcome.

[bytor2112]

He presides in the sense that he is the "ranking" high priest at the meeting, but not in the sense that he holds keys of Priesthood leadership over a quorum.

In the same vein, if no member of either the bishopric or the high priest group leadership (or stake presidency or higher-level leadership) were present, the most senior high priest would take charge of the meeting. If no high priests at all were present, the elders quorum president would take charge; absent him, his senior counselor present would do so. If no high priests and no elders quorum presidency members were available, the senior elder would take charge. Absent any Melchizedek Priesthood, I believe the first assistant in the priests quorum (or, if he is not there, the second assistant) is required take charge. If none of the above are available, the senior priest takes charge.

If you don't have at least a priest available, you cannot administer the sacrament, so there cannot be a sacrament meeting.

Corrections welcome.

Sr. as determined by ordination date?

[Vort]

Sr. as determined by ordination date?

Yes.

[mordorbund]

Some relevant sections of the Church Handbook of Instruction vol 2 (the sequel). Regarding HPGL's counsellors:

If an elder is called to serve in a high priests group leadership, he must be ordained a high priest before he is set apart. - 7.2.1

My brief search didn't yield anything about deciding whether an Elder should meet with the Elders' Quorum or the High Priests' Group (I'm guessing that's left to local leadership based on some of the sections describing prospective Elders), but ultimately Stake Presidents decide when/if someone is ordained a High Priest:

Brethren are ordained high priests when they are called to a stake presidency, high council, or bishopric or when otherwise determined by the stake president. The rights and responsibilities of high priests are to preside and to hold all the authority of elders (see D&C 107:10). - 7.1.1

I read "or when otherwise determined by the stake president" to mean that he can set a stake-wide rule that if a man turns 45 or 50, he should be interviewed for the office of High Priest (unless, of course vol 1 has something to clarify this that I'm not privvy to).

[Anddenex]

This is not quite true. As an elder, a man may participate in any ordinance and receive any Priesthood blessing that God gives to men, up to and including membership in the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Well, yes it is true, and it is apparent you read a little to deep into my statement. Also, an Elder, who does not hold the office of an High Priest, is not able to officiate or perform the sealing ordinance. Thus, the following statement, "an elder...may participate in [ANY] ordinance, would not be correct. Unless you can provide doctrinal or specific evidence an Elder, who has not been ordained to the office of a High Priest, has performed and does now perform sealing ordinances?

In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of those men who enter into this highest order of the Priesthood do so as elders, not as high priests.

Really...no kidding, you mean you need to be an Elder before you become a High Priest? If you would actually read my comment you would recognize I never said otherwise, and you would not need to sarcastically "venture to say" anything.

Again, this is not so. The office of high priest confers no authority to officiate in sealings. That is done only through the sealing power, which is bestowed separately. I believe that it is the case that only high priests receive the sealing power. Perhaps this is what you meant.

Hmm...yes it is so, and I never said the office of a high priest "confers" any authority. The authority was already conferred upon the individual, a high priest, who received the sealing authority to perform the sealing. If an individual, and Elder, wants to be one who performs sealings, then he must first be ordained to the office of an high priest, after he is ordained to the office of an high priest, then the sealing power is conferred or given to the individual.

Please read my statement slower. I never said anything about conferring anything. I clearly stated an Elder is unable to officiate or perform a sealing. Whereas a high priest is able to do so. I assumed it was common knowledge that the sealing power or authority needed to be conferred. However, I guess not.

The Priesthood office of patriarch is distinct from that of high priest. Along with the offices of elder, seventy, and apostle, they constitute all the offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood (or at least all that have been given to us).

Again, I never said it wasn't distinct. I said it is within the office of an high priest, not that it is a high priest.

Or let me be more clear, how many Patriarchs do you know that only hold the office of an Elder? Any, I will venture to say this time, you know of none. I will also venture to say, how many seventies, apostles, and prophets, do you know who only hold the office of an Elder?

Either way Vort...please ask questions of clarification next time, instead of assuming I said something, or wrote something, I did not.

Best.

[Anddenex]

How so? Same Priesthood covenant...same requirements for Exaltation. So, not a greater responsibility of righteousness. interestingly enough....high Priests are Elders and the EQP holds "Keys" while the High Priest Group Leader does not.

Thank you for the question, and comment explaining your question. I will clarify my statement, because after writing this one I realized others may not completely understand what I said.

However, if you read the last part of my statement about following doctrine and the calling of an High Priest, then I believe, it would have been more clear.

Agreed, same Priesthood covenant with the same requirements for Exaltation. The EQP remember is the President of the quorum who holds keys. The President of the high priest quorum is the Stake President, who holds keys. As Vort explained in a latter comment, and which was explained well.

As pertaining to a greater responsibility of righteousness here are some verses of scripture that may clarify my statement. Alma 13: 3 "on account of their exceeding faith and good works"

Alma 13: 5, "in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren...for such as would not harden their hearts." In connection read all of verse 10.

I would also lead you to Abraham 1: 2, "Having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge...I became a rightful heir, a High Priest..."

The scripture we are all familiar with, "many are called, but few are chosen."

I believe, you might be reading my statement as saying a high priest is more righteous, automatically because they are a high priest. This is not so. They hold a "greater responsibility" of righteousness, not that they are more righteous.

To be really lame, I am going to quote Spiderman, "with great power there must also come great responsibility." (ha, ya, I know I just quoted Spiderman---the Star Wars quotes have been used to much :) )

As such with the call of a high priest, there comes a greater responsibility, with that responsibility a desire should follow to be more righteous. It is the highest office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, and one that should not be taken lightly. An Elder, should be able to look up to every High Priest as an example, unfortunately as with other time periods, this has and is not the case.

I hope that clarifies my statement.

[bytor2112]

As such with the call of a high priest, there comes a greater responsibility, with that responsibility a desire should follow to be more righteous. It is the highest office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, and one that should not be taken lightly. An Elder, should be able to look up to every High Priest as an example, unfortunately as with other time periods, this has and is not the case.

I hope that clarifies my statement.

I guess. But, i am not seeing the greater responsibility.....and I think Apostle is the highest office of the Priesthood. We should aspire to be as righteous as the Savior, regardless of the office. As for Elder's looking to HP's as examples, I can only assume you mean because of the typical younger age of the EQ.

Incidentally, I note High Priests are referred to as "Elder" as in Elder Bednar. Just saying......

[Vort]

Well, yes it is true

As I noted, it is not true, unless you know of ordinances in which an elder cannot participate.

Please notice that I did not say "officiate in". Rather, I quoted your own words: "The higher up the office the greater the responsibility of righteousness and what one may participate in."

an Elder, who does not hold the office of an High Priest, is not able to officiate or perform the sealing ordinance.

You are changing your claim from "participate in" to "officiate in", which is a completely different matter.

Thus, the following statement, "an elder...may participate in [ANY] ordinance, would not be correct.

If you think it is not, please give me an example of an ordinance in which an elder may not participate. I know of none.

Unless you can provide doctrinal or specific evidence an Elder, who has not been ordained to the office of a High Priest, has performed and does now perform sealing ordinances?

We weren't talking about officiating, we were talking about participating.

Really...no kidding, you mean you need to be an Elder before you become a High Priest? If you would actually read my comment you would recognize I never said otherwise, and you would not need to sarcastically "venture to say" anything.

There was nothing sarcastic in my wording. I meant it sincerely. This was in response to my statement:

In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of those men who enter into this highest order of the Priesthood do so as elders, not as high priests.

I am not sure what you object to in this statement. If there is something untrue or inaccurate in it, please let me know.

Hmm...yes it is so, and I never said the office of a high priest "confers" any authority.

To review, you stated:

The office of an Elder is not sufficient to perform sealings within the Temple, but the office of a high priest may officiate in sealings.

I replied:

Again, this is not so. The office of high priest confers no authority to officiate in sealings.

Let me try to be clearer. "The office of a high priest" does not officiate in sealings. Sealers officiate in sealings. As I continued to say:

I believe that it is the case that only high priests receive the sealing power. Perhaps this is what you meant.

Not sure why you interpreted this as sarcasm. Rather, I was trying to match your words to my understanding of reality by giving them the most charitable interpretation I could come up with.

The authority was already conferred upon the individual, a high priest, who received the sealing authority to perform the sealing. If an individual, and Elder, wants to be one who performs sealings, then he must first be ordained to the office of an high priest, after he is ordained to the office of an high priest, then the sealing power is conferred or given to the individual.

This is approximately so, but I don't understand what difference it makes. The discussion was on participation in ordinances, not on who might officiate.

And contrary to your assertion, it is not only high priests who can hold the sealing power. Patriarchs, seventies, and apostles also can hold the sealing power.

And if your response to that is that patriarchs, seventies, and apostles ARE high priests, then using the same picky definitional logic, my counterresponse is that they are also elders. So therefore, elders CAN hold that power.

Please read my statement slower. I never said anything about conferring anything. I clearly stated an Elder is unable to officiate or perform a sealing. Whereas a high priest is able to do so.

And I clearly said this is not so. For example, I am a high priest, yet I cannot officiate or perform a sealing. I do not have the sealing power. My office of high priest is insufficient to grant me that power. I am as unable to perform that ordinance as any elder, or for that matter any other high priest who does not have the sealing power.

I assumed it was common knowledge that the sealing power or authority needed to be conferred. However, I guess not.

I don't know whether or not it's common knowledge. What is not common knowledge, because it's false, is your statement that "the office of a high priest may officiate in sealings."

Again, I never said it wasn't distinct. I said it is within the office of an high priest, not that it is a high priest.

Then why didn't you say that it's within the office of a deacon? Because any patriarch is also a deacon. Well, you didn't say it because it is not true. The office of patriarch is distinct from the office of high priest. The high priest office does not "contain" the office of patriarch any more than the office of deacon "contains" it.

Or let me be more clear, how many Patriarchs do you know that only hold the office of an Elder?

Without exception, every patriarch I know holds the office of patriarch.

Any, I will venture to say this time, you know of none. I will also venture to say, how many seventies, apostles, and prophets, do you know who only hold the office of an Elder?

By your use of the term, all of them, just as much as they hold the office of high priest.

Either way Vort...please ask questions of clarification next time, instead of assuming I said something, or wrote something, I did not.

I have made no such assumptions. As I have demonstrated, I have taken you at your own word.

Best.

Best what?

[Anddenex]

I guess. But, i am not seeing the greater responsibility.....and I think Apostle is the highest office of the Priesthood. We should aspire to be as righteous as the Savior, regardless of the office. As for Elder's looking to HP's as examples, I can only assume you mean because of the typical younger age of the EQ.

Incidentally, I note High Priests are referred to as "Elder" as in Elder Bednar. Just saying......

Greater responsibility. Let me see if I can put it this way:

A deacon has specific responsibilities. When a deacon becomes a teacher, the duty of home teaching is now a part of their responsibilities. Thus, a teacher has more responsibilities than a deacon, and as such has a greater responsibility of righteousness.

An Elder isn't able to participate in every ordinance a High Priest is able to do so. Thus a High Priest, has a greater responsibility of righteousness, due to the fact that they have more responsibilities.

I couldn't agree more, we should all be aspiring to be as righteous as the Savior, regardless of the office. I never said otherwise.

As pertaining to the office of an Apostle and this being the highest office, let me share this verse to clarify my statement as to why the high priest is the highest office.

D&C 107: 22, "Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three "Presiding High Priests" and the Apostles are under the authority, or presiding authority, of three High Priests. Also read D&C 107: 64-66, "Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church." I note, that the doctrine does not specify the Presiding Elder, but the Presiding High Priest.

My authority and responsibilities as an Elder, are not the same as an Apostle whose title is Elder. Which title emphasizes full time missionary. Note, I no longer go by Elder Exon, as I did on my mission. I am simply Brother Exon.

"As for Elder's looking to HP's as examples, I can only assume you mean because of the typical younger age of the EQ."

No, not in the least, whether younger or older, an Elder should be able to look up to a High Priest for a better example of living the Priesthood. Just as any deacon should be able to look up to any teacher, despite their age, as an example of righteousness in their office.

[Vort]

As pertaining to a greater responsibility of righteousness here are some verses of scripture that may clarify my statement. Alma 13: 3 "on account of their exceeding faith and good works"

Please note that this verse almost certainly does not refer to the modern Priesthood office of "high priest", which did not even exist at the time Joseph Smith translated this. Rather, in this context, a "high priest" means "someone who holds the high Priesthood" -- in other words, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, such as an elder. The Nephites lived under the law of Moses. Under that law, the "high priest" meant either the leader of the (Levitical or Aaronic) priests, or else the man who held the "high Priesthood".

I would also lead you to Abraham 1: 2, "Having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge...I became a rightful heir, a High Priest..."

Same comment.

It is the highest office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, and one that should not be taken lightly.

The offices of patriarch, seventy, and apostle are considered "higher" than the office of high priest inasmuch as they encompass the duties of that office, much as the office of high priest encompasses the duties of an elder.

[Anddenex]

As I noted, it is not true, unless you know of ordinances in which an elder cannot participate.

Please notice that I did not say "officiate in". Rather, I quoted your own words: "The higher up the office the greater the responsibility of righteousness and what one may participate in."

Yes, I know an ordinance or an ordination an Elder is not able to participate in. You know this also, is an Elder able to participate in the ordination of a high priest? This year, one of my best friends asked me to "participate in" his ordination to a high priest. As an Elder, I had to tell him no, because I have not the ability to participate in such an ordinance. I can only participate in offices of my equal authority or of lesser authority. Yet, you know this.

You are changing your claim from "participate in" to "officiate in", which is a completely different matter.

Please note my own words, clarifying I didn't change my stance, and confirming the request that you read my comments slower.

I quote myself, "The office of an Elder is not sufficient to perform sealings within the Temple, but the office of a high priest may officiate in sealings."

Please notice the words, "officiate in", thus my stance has not changed. I am also, as an Elder unable to officiate, or participate, in a sealing ordinance. If I were called to be a sealer, as an Elder, I must first be ordained to the office of a high priest.

If you think it is not, please give me an example of an ordinance in which an elder may not participate. I know of none.

We weren't talking about officiating, we were talking about participating.

I just previously provided two examples. If you did not know of these before, now you do.

If you read my comment slower, you would have noticed my own words, "officiate in."

There was nothing sarcastic in my wording. I meant it sincerely. This was in response to my statement:

In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of those men who enter into this highest order of the Priesthood do so as elders, not as high priests.

I am not sure what you object to in this statement. If there is something untrue or inaccurate in it, please let me know.

Not sure why you interpreted this as sarcasm. Rather, I was trying to match your words to my understanding of reality by giving them the most charitable interpretation I could come up with.

I never said anything was inaccurate, false, or untrue pertaining to this section of quotes. If you were not being sarcastic, then I misinterpreted the intent behind the words. Then I apologize. However, I know I am not the only who misinterprets your sincere sarcasm, or what appears as very sarcastic language.

And contrary to your assertion, it is not only high priests who can hold the sealing power. Patriarchs, seventies, and apostles also can hold the sealing power.

This is a play on semantics, and using rhetoric to benefit your stance.

And if your response to that is that patriarchs, seventies, and apostles ARE high priests, then using the same picky definitional logic, my counterresponse is that they are also elders. So therefore, elders CAN hold that power.

Yes, and we both know your last part of this statement is blatantly false, and in no way correlates with, "And if your response to that is that patriarchs, seventies, and apostles ARE high priests..."

We also both know, it isn't "picky definitional logic", and that you again, are using semantics to verify your stance. Thus again, I ask, "How many Elders do you know who can officiate or participate in a sealing ordinance." We both know, I am not speaking about being a "witness" but actually participating as the sealer? We both know, a Priesthood holder, who only holds the office of an Elder, can not participate or officiate in the ordinance of a sealing. The only Elders who can hold this sealing power are those who have been ordained to the office of a high priest. Thus this reverts back to the originally statement, and confirms it, that only a high priest holds this power. Your emphasis is similar to a deacon arguing that he has the power to baptize, because he is an Aaronic priesthood holder, and then trying to confirm it by saying since a priest is also a deacon, thus deacons can baptize. Really?

Why use semantics and rhetoric to make a point, when you know the point you are making is easily proven false.

For emphasis, to repeat myself, your debate of an Elder holding the power is no different than saying a deacon holds the power to baptize, when he does not, just because a priest is also a deacon.

And I clearly said this is not so. For example, I am a high priest, yet I cannot officiate or perform a sealing. I do not have the sealing power. My office of high priest is insufficient to grant me that power. I am as unable to perform that ordinance as any elder, or for that matter any other high priest who does not have the sealing power.

I don't know whether or not it's common knowledge. What is not common knowledge, because it's false, is your statement that "the office of a high priest may officiate in sealings."

Then why didn't you say that it's within the office of a deacon? Because any patriarch is also a deacon. Well, you didn't say it because it is not true. The office of patriarch is distinct from the office of high priest. The high priest office does not "contain" the office of patriarch any more than the office of deacon "contains" it.

Yes, I never said otherwise. It is clear in my posts, of clarification, that I never said a high priest can automatically officiate in a sealing. I did say it is conferred upon a high priest, not an Elder. So these three paragraphs are moot.

Now your playing naive, pertaining to "common knowledge". If you are a high priest, then you know, and is common knowledge, that a high priest officiates in sealing after they have been set apart.

We both also know, my statement isn't false. Are you trying to tell me the sealer isn't a high priest, and a high priest isn't officiating in the sealing ordinance? Really?

By the way, a Patriarch is a deacon, as is a high priest an Elder, and a priest a deacon. However, we both know a deacon does not have the ability to participate in the blessing of the sacrament, as we both know, common knowledge, a priest can not confirm a member of the church, as we both know the office of an Elder is not able to be set apart as a sealer, until he is ordained a high priest. Yes, common knowledge. As is common knowledge, that becoming a sealer is within the office of a high priest. As it is within the office of seventies and apostles.

Or else, will you try and prove to me an Elder can be set apart as a sealer, without first being ordained to the office of a high priest? or must, the Elder first be ordained a high priest, and then set apart as a sealer? We both know the answer.

I have made no such assumptions. As I have demonstrated, I have taken you at your own word.

No, you haven't taken me at my own words, as was verified in the beginning of this dialogue, and which is why I am responding.

Best what?

Best, as in short for "Best Regards" at the end of a letter. Best, as saying, I have no animosity. Best, as in thanks for the discussion. Best as saying, "we are brothers." Best, as in saying, have a great day.

So I say it again, Best Vort.

[mnn727]

I know they will disagree. But I'm pretty sure being old is one of the requirements.

That's not the case, there are many old Elders (even though they may attend the the H.P. Group meeting rather than the Elders Quorum.) There are also many young H.P. (late 20's or 30's) if they are in a Bishopric.

Usually (but not always)when someone is made a H.P. its because they need the higher Priesthood for a calling (Bishopric, Stake Presidency, Mission President, etc)

Edited June 14, 2012 by mnn727

[Vort]

That's not the case, there are many old Elders (even though they may attend the the H.P. Group meeting rather than the Elders Quorum. There are also many young H.P. (late 20's or 30's) if they are in a Bishopric.

Usually (but not always)when someone is made a H.P. its because they need the higher Priesthood for a calling (Bishopric, Stake Presidency, Mission President, etc)

Minor correction: The Priesthood is not "higher". It is the same Priesthood. The office in the Priesthood is nominally "higher".

[mnn727]

It is interesting that some stakes have policies that after a certain age they get moved to HP. I think that is a necessary policy or many older members would not attend.

When I hit my 50's I asked my Bishop if I could start meeting with the HP group since most of the Elders were 20 years my junior (or so)

Gosh I love my HP group - we have some really interesting and experienced men -- nobody takes naps. I find myself wishing we would have more time in class.

When you have a couple of ex - Stake Presidents, 2 ex Mission Presidents, 6 or 7 ex-Bishops, you get some really interesting discussions going.

[mnn727]

Minor correction: The Priesthood is not "higher". It is the same Priesthood. The office in the Priesthood is nominally "higher".

Correct, (Picky but correct)

[mnn727]

Who keeps opening up 2+ year old threads?

[EarlJibbs]

Who keeps opening up 2+ year old threads?

I am not sure, but it has been a good discussion (between Vort and Annatess) :):rolleyes:

[Vort]

When I hit my 50's I asked my Bishop if I could start meeting with the HP group since most of the Elders were 20 years my junior (or so)

When I was about 47, a member of the bishopric instructed (not invited) me to attend the high priests group. He made it clear that the directive was from the stake president and that it was not a request. I was quite unhappy about it, but I obeyed. Turned out to be a great thing for me.

[bytor2112]

When I was about 47, a member of the bishopric instructed (not invited) me to attend the high priests group. He made it clear that the directive was from the stake president and that it was not a request. I was quite unhappy about it, but I obeyed. Turned out to be a great thing for me.

Are you now a HP? I would have asked...why? Or, why doesn't the SP tell me himself? Or why doesn't he have the EQP tell me?

[Vort]

Yes, I am an assistant, so my brother ordained me a high priest.