High Priests 1st Sunday topics


Morrkai
 Share

Recommended Posts

Welcome, @Morrkai!  Have you reviewed the instructions in the November 2017 Ensignhttps://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/11/come-follow-me-for-melchizedek-priesthood-and-relief-society/first-sunday-council-meetings?lang=eng

This thread (and the one linked within it) may also help you:

IMO, you want to follow the counsel in that Ensign issue, and prayerfully identify "responsibilities, opportunities, and challenges" your HPG should focus on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Morrkai said:

I have just been called as a high priest and high priest group leader.  What ate some good topics.  We have discussed priesthood blessings and concencrated oil and passed out vials.  Also we discussed home teaching  any help would be appreciated 

You just got called as a high priest to be the new group leader?

That's what we call baptism by fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Morrkai said:

@Vort yes i was called as a high preist and called to be the group leader.   I never have had a leadership calling. I have always been in scouts

Well, best of luck to you. Or to be more appropriate, may the Lord bless you in your efforts. You can do a whole lot of good in the lives of your men and the families in your ward as the HPGL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Vort said:

You just got called as a high priest to be the new group leader?

That's what we call baptism by fire.

You think that is difficult, I was recently called to be a High Priest so that I could be called as the High Priest secretary--anyone who has served as an HP secretary will know what I mean. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morrkai said:

@wenglund it was a total shock for me  my goal.was to be the oldest elder in our ward. Now i am one of youngest high priest.  It has been a humbling experince so far. 

You sound like the perfect person for the job, and I think you will do great--particularly if you chose good assistants and secretary.. Humility is a critical prerequisite for gospel leadership, and being shocked that you were called strongly indicates to me inspiration from God. Often, and rightly so, the last people to be called to SERVE in such positions are those who are full of themselves and surprised that they weren't called. ;)

And, if it is of any comfort, a decade ago I achieved the enviable goal of being the oldest Elder in the Ward, if not also eventuallly the Stake or the Church, and I can tell you from personal experience that the srenown tatus from that achievement isn't  what it is cracked up to be. The looks of mixed puzzlement and pity tend not to make one's day. Now, were you single and never married like I am, then that would have added a whole new layer of off-putting charm that would make the status worthwhile. LOL

All the best,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2018 at 10:16 PM, wenglund said:

You sound like the perfect person for the job, and I think you will do great--particularly if you chose good assistants and secretary.. Humility is a critical prerequisite for gospel leadership, and being shocked that you were called strongly indicates to me inspiration from God. Often, and rightly so, the last people to be called to SERVE in such positions are those who are full of themselves and surprised that they weren't called. ;)

And, if it is of any comfort, a decade ago I achieved the enviable goal of being the oldest Elder in the Ward, if not also eventuallly the Stake or the Church, and I can tell you from personal experience that the srenown tatus from that achievement isn't  what it is cracked up to be. The looks of mixed puzzlement and pity tend not to make one's day. Now, were you single and never married like I am, then that would have added a whole new layer of off-putting charm that would make the status worthwhile. LOL

All the best,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I was somewhat younger when I was made a high priest in my earlier 30's and now that I am pushing 40 I have had many thoughts of how I miss the Elders Quorum and being with younger guys where I can mingle and mentor and learn.  When I talk to older Elder Quorum members I always let them know that there is no rush to be a high priest as those young guys need someone with experience and it's a great opportunity to be a bit older and in Elders quorum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some of us, blessings were greatly delayed.  I was an elder for MANY years...and it wasn't until I was older that I was even considered for a HP.  Then leadership callings came later in life...I think I'm on some sort of delay or something.  I heard that in many stakes they had an age where they automatically made someone a HP, but apparently that didn't apply to mine. 

I think this drives some of the older folks from the church at times.  It can be HARD to be an older Elder when everyone else your age is a HP, and it's not because you are unworthy or anything (in fact, I'd say about 1/3 of those who were HP when I was an older Elder have actually now fallen away from the church).  In some ways, I wish that they would make an automatic age where individuals became HP.

The reason is I see that at times there is a favoritism and the high school ideology of popular and unpopular (yes, I guess I was unpopular) in the selection of HP at times...which is non-existent in the selection of the rest of the attaining the priesthood.  It is the ONE thing I would want changed if I could...but I can't...and I'm in no position to do so (which, is probably wise).

I am actually faithful and still going, but even I can still recall some of the pain that caused me, and can see the pain it causes others who are older at times, even if they do not voice it. 

That said, for any who ARE older Elders, know that there ARE many (like I) who have experienced this situation and sympathize.  In the end, it has no impact on salvation or anything else, as we are all (or should be considered) equal as Melchizedek priesthood holders.  All blessings come to those who are faithful.

I think a good step for some wards, if they can (some have quorums that are too large) is to simply have no division of Elders and High Priests when they meet, have them all meet together thus emphasizing that in reality, they all should be on the same footing (able to have the same temple ordinances and same chances at salvation).  Unfortunatley, too often we stress them being different and that can make it hard for the HP that are young, and the Elders that are old...through NO FAULT of their own, but in some instances, the fault of ward and stake politics (or, High School politics of who is popular in the Stake and who is not at times). 

It IS a painful thing for some (and in some instances, for those who are older elders, painful enough that they just stop coming...which doesn't help the matter at all in them becoming High Priests).  This is something I think could be VERY EASY to change (for example, no longer dividing the quorums in meeting, but having a combined quorum meeting), or, truly setting a standard age where if one has been righteous and loyal in the church, the get called to be a High Priest.

Not that it will happen. 

I think for me, in some ways it WAS a blessing (and this is the other take away that those who are still Elders and are older can hold onto and look it as).  I now have a ward with a high percentage of Minorities, but MANY of them do not go.  One of the main complaints of these minorities is that there is prejudice in the LDS church and they can demonstrate this.  We see that almost 1/3 of the members are minorities, but only ONE has ever been made a HP in our area.  Even in the Spanish branch, they called a white Individual to be a Bishop.  They see this as a HUGE discouragement, and see it directly as discrimination and prejudice.

Some of them have a BIG problem with me, but for some, because of the delay I had, I can point this out to them.  I can say it is NOT just them that do not become HP when they are young, and that if one remains faithful and going to the church, nothing will be denied them...eventually.  I understand their frustration, and at least partially, how hard it is for some of them to accept others and their part in the church.  It has made me more understanding of their difficulties and problems.

But I will say, I was definitely NOT a YOUNG Elder.  I wonder if it is because I didn't have the right "geneology" at times...because I'm the first member in my family, thus no great church background.  Anyways, for those who read this thread and are like I was, an Older Elder...do NOT lose hope or get angry.  I was one of you, and I understand what it is like.  The biggest thing for you to hope is that you don't become part of the Ward Leadership in your late 60s and early 70s...some things are harder when you are older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just have a different perspective from @JohnsonJones.

If a man holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, regardless of office, then he has all the authority from God that he needs here and now to bring himself and his family to eternal life. Priesthood office is utterly irrelevant. It is an artifact of mortal service in the kingdom of God. The Melchizedek Priesthood itself is the authority of God, not any specific office therein. As has been pointed out from earliest times, the newest ordained elder has as much Priesthood authority as the most senior apostle. The only differences between the two, Priesthood-wise, are callings and keys.

It is true that human societies tend to organize hierarchically, even when that's inappropriate. And it's true that at least some men see the office of high priest as some sort of ego thing. But the weaknesses and foolishness of men are normally not a good guide for setting Church policy. Mandatory ordination to the office of high priest upon "attainment" of some certain age is antithetical to the nature of Church leadership and callings. Such a process might make sense when we're using the Aaronic Priesthood as a training ground for our young men, to teach them how to serve in the Priesthood. But with adults, that misses the point.

In addition, the high priests of any stake are expected to be the spiritual backbone of the stake. You need sufficient numbers of strong, faithful, capable elders in each ward to keep the elders quorum strong, but you really can't afford to have very many high priests with testimony issues. You're asking for serious trouble if you make some mandatory age of ordination to the office of high priest.

Of course, this last point appears to work at odds with the first point, and gives reason to the gossips in any ward to wonder about the worthiness or testimony of any elder over the age of 40. That is most unfortunate, but so be it. The problem is not the elder's age or Priesthood office, but the gossiping. If you're "still" an elder at the age of 50 and that bothers you, tell yourself the following perfectly true things:

  • An elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood can lead his family to eternal life exactly as well as a high priest can.
  • Elders quorums need seasoned, experienced men in their midst, and can only be enhanced by the presence of a faithful middle-aged brother.
  • You have a lot to offer the younger elders, most of whom are either unmarried or in the early years of marriage involving very young children. Your perspective can change their perspective, and perhaps their lives.
  • If and when the time comes that you are needed to serve as a high priest, rest assured that the stake president will call you to that office. You will miss out on no blessings and, really, no callings because you're "only an elder".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In eq there was only 1 other my age.  All the others were  young newlyweds and have young kids.  I loved eq.  It was fun to be able tell them wait til your kids are teenagers.  You will learn a lot and find out your parents kinda knes what they were talking about.  In my hpg we have older gentlemen who are elders and feel more comfortable attending with us.I am happy to see then and attending to me it dont matter as long as they feel the spirit. Hope this made sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I guess I just have a different perspective from @JohnsonJones.

If a man holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, regardless of office, then he has all the authority from God that he needs here and now to bring himself and his family to eternal life. Priesthood office is utterly irrelevant. It is an artifact of mortal service in the kingdom of God. The Melchizedek Priesthood itself is the authority of God, not any specific office therein. As has been pointed out from earliest times, the newest ordained elder has as much Priesthood authority as the most senior apostle. The only differences between the two, Priesthood-wise, are callings and keys.

 

This is true, and it is doctrine.

It is also something that we may think we teach and act like it is true, but the reality is one that many who get to be HP when they were younger than I do not realize.  For some reason, people may be nice, but they automatically assume that someone who is a HP is more righteous if they become one when they were younger, and that one who is older when they become a HP is by default the greater sinner.  It is VERY painful.  It is a dynamic that is a TERRIBLE thing that occurs in the LDS church, and it something that I had to go through.  It is prideful, hateful, and one of the worst things that we do in the LDS church.  I have often wondered if in my area, because I am the convert and do not have this huge church background, if that's one of the reasons I was considered an "outcast" in this way.

We preach one thing, but we PRACTICE another in our LDS culture. 

There is a blessing though.  Because of this experience, when called to leadership finally, I can sympathize with the many Hispanics in our ward (and even our stake).  When they talk about the blatant discrimination in the LDS church and point out to the fact that almost NO Hispanics are High Priests in our area, despite around 1/3 of the membership being Hispanic, or that the entire High Council and Stake Leadership is white...and to add insult to injury, that even the Bishop of the Spanish Branch is now white...I can understand a little bit of the pain and anguish they feel when it appears that others are being placed in positions...NOT because of righteousness or any other item (as I said, probably 1/3 of those or more who were High Priests during my time as an Elder are either inactive or out of the church completely...as in apostasy...great call on those with strong testimonies...NOT)...but because of who they are related to, or how much people like them, or any other reason with the added inclusion that they are WHITE...yes...I can now sympathize with them.

It is possible that the entire reason it took so long for me to be called in the HP was so I could understand these humble individuals that feel persecuted and abused in the LDS church.  Perhaps it was so that I could relate to them in some small manner when I visit and encourage them to come to church.

However, that does NOT hide the pain that I felt, or the anguish and under representation that these members who are just as loved by the Lord feel in regards to how we conduct ourselves in the LDS church.  To destroy this appearance of favoritism and prejudice, my thoughts are that if possible, elders and HP SHOULD be combined to eliminate this idea.  In addition, we SHOULD do as some Stakes did in the past...if one has been worthy, active, and temple going for five years...then at a certain age (40, 45, 50) one SHOULD become a HP.  In addition...and this would be scandalous...IF one does become a HP at a younger age and is seen bragging about it, there should be some form of punishment to automatically humble them and bring them back to being an elder until they learn humility and patience, rather than making anyone who hasn't been feel guilty of not being so "righteous" as the one bragging (or their spouse or their family).

(Addendum: Just so one can understand what went on when I was an older Elder...there were woman in relief society that dealt with my wife that constantly compared what positions their husbands had or had in the past in comparison to how righteous one must be, regardless of how righteous that individual was.  Caused great grief for my wife occasionally.  In addition, there were other gentlemen in our ward which had sons younger than me that would point out that their son was now a Bishop, or counselor in the Stake Presidency and other things as if it were something that was commendable on them...all the while when I was right there and they KNEW my age in relation to their sons.  This among various other things showed just how much they felt the calling and HP really WAS representative of how righteous or good one was, and how they actually viewed me...and yes, it was not a happy experience for me.  It has happened a lot in my life, and I'm certain it probably happens frequently in the church overall.  It is this division that we need to do away with, and as the personal pride doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon, I would have it so that policy changes were made in the LDS church to make it a non-issue and one that cannot be used or be seen as discriminatory, favoritism, or nepotism.  To be clear, I still think that the LORD IS behind church callings, but there are times when the appearance seems otherwise, and the way we ACT portrays it in a very different light).

Lucky for everyone though, and this is probably a good thing to teach me humility, I am not one able to make decisions like that.

I'm okay (despite what it may appear in my post) with what happened.  It does NOT affect my testimony, and I know this is the Lord's church and it carries the true Gospel.  I have five RM's in our family, and many grandchildren that are also raised in the church.  As I said, in hindsight, I can see WHY it was a blessing for me (the Lord prepares us for callings we may not realize), and it prepared me to try to help others.  However, I know it also is somewhat of a problem in some areas of the church and it SHOULD be a concern to people because it portrays us as a people that  we should not be.  It is also of little comfort, even when people like me assure others of blessings when they are suffering through this type of affliction themselves currently.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is also something that we may think we teach and act like it is true, but the reality is one that many who get to be HP when they were younger than I do not realize.

I actually do have some experience with this, JJ. Not exactly what you're talking about, but not as different as you might think.

I was in my mid-40s and had been serving for several years is a few different callings that had kept me from anything like regular attendance at elders quorum. At that time, I was already the oldest active elder in the ward, one of the oldest in the stake, I think. Still, I looked forward to meeting again with my quorum when released from my calling. I suppose I took some weird satisfaction in this idea of being the ward's "eldest elder". In any case, I was very consciously avoiding any "Priesthood office envy" and working to find satisfaction and contentment with my place. And we did in fact have an excellent group of elders, so it was a great quorum to be a member of.

The day came for my release. The bishopric counselor released me with one breath, then in the next breath told me that, since I was now quite a bit older than the average age of the ward's elders, I was "invited" to attend the high priest group for third hour. This did not come as a total surprise, and I began rehearsing to this dear man (whom I had known since we first moved into the ward) how I appreciated the gesture, but I was comfortable with the elders and wanted to meet with my own quorum. I was only a few words into my spiel when this good brother interrupted me with, "Brother Vort, this is not an invitation. It is instruction from the stake president."

I am not proud to say that I was pretty unhappy about this. (I hope that) I didn't show this agitation to the bishopric counselor, but when I got home, my wife got an earful of my feelings on the matter. What sense did such instruction even make? If they wanted me in the high priest group, call me to be a high priest! I'm an ELDER! I belong with the ELDERS QUORUM! (I did not yet understand the operations of the Church and my place therein, and that the quorum I "belonged" with was actually the quorum that my stake president -- the presiding elder of the stake -- told me to attend.)

My wife calmed me down and convinced me to give it a try. So I did -- and was humbled. The members of the high priest group included many men I had been with and served with earlier in my elders quorum, and a better group of men I could not have asked for. I was also told, privately, by the HPGL (a former bishop) that he had requested that I and a good friend be included in the high priests group because we tended to be a bit more, um, voluble than the others, and he really needed more talk and discussion and brotherhood taking place in the group. I had been asked (aka instructed) to attend the high priests group because I was valued, because I could be of service to these good men whom I loved. I repented of my pride and happily accepted my status as a "visiting quorum member" for two or three years, until called to be an assistant in the group leadership. That was the same year my dad had died, so I asked my older brother, whom my father had ordained three or four years previously, to ordain me -- another great blessing.

If we seek office in the Priesthood out of pride or a desire to look good, we will lose the blessings of heaven. As the Lord said on another matter, we have our reward. I believe the same is true if we seek to avoid office, callings, or simple obedience to instruction for any such reason. However foolish I may have been, I'm glad I managed to humble myself and simply obey. I was blessed for my obedience, however I may have stumbled getting there.

39 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

To destroy this appearance of favoritism and prejudice, my thoughts are that if possible, elders and HP SHOULD be combined to eliminate this idea.

I don't agree, for a few reasons. One thing is that different Priesthood offices have different quorums, and that should be respected. Another is that the quorums serve differing needs of their members, and the de facto age difference between elders and high priests mean that the groups actually have quite a difference in many of the member needs.

39 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In addition, we SHOULD do as some Stakes did in the past...if one has been worthy, active, and temple going for five years...then at a certain age (40, 45, 50) one SHOULD become a HP.

I think this is a counterproductive idea. Here is one example: In my high priests group, we had one member who was a humble, hard-working group member who probably did as much good for the group as any other single member. He was a few years older than me, and I was surprised when he told me that he was not a high priest, but an elder. I wondered a bit at that, but of course I didn't ask him. This man's wife was LDS but had not been active in many years, though he often tried to bring her to various activities. Some years later, I found out, somewhat by accident, that this good brother did not pay tithing because his wife objected to it, and he thought it improper to force the issue over her objections. Therefore, he could not get a temple recommend. For this reason, he couldn't be ordained a high priest.

How would it have been if a mandatory age of ordination to high priest had been established, and someone found out that this good brother was well past the mandatory age and yet was "only" an elder? That would simply not be acceptable. If pride is taken out of the equation, a mandatory age of ordination makes no sense.

39 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In addition...and this would be scandalous...IF one does become a HP at a younger age and is seen bragging about it, there should be some form of punishment to automatically humble them and bring them back to being an elder until they learn humility and patience, rather than making anyone who hasn't been feel guilty of not being so "righteous" as the one bragging (or their spouse or their family).

If a mandatory ordination age for high priests would be a bad idea (which it would), this would be utterly disastrous, and on several levels. First of all, it would firmly embed the false doctrine that the office of high priest was more virtuous or powerful than the office of elder. Secondly, such a "punishment" is completely at odds with the nature and purpose of Priesthood office, which is not given as a reward nor removed as a punishment. Third, it would surely break down the bonds of brotherhood that should unite Priesthood holders.

If any "young high priest" starts getting prideful and saying uppity things, the bishop can call him in for a private consultation (or dressing down, as the case may warrant), and/or advise the stake president of such activity. I am sure the stake president will help the offending high priest achieve the necessary humility. Offending wives are not above receiving such humbling instruction, though the bishop may opt to try to go through the Priesthood holder before taking it upon himself to call her into his office and tell her to knock it off.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I think this is a counterproductive idea. Here is one example: In my high priests group, we had one member who was a humble, hard-working group member who probably did as much good for the group as any other single member. He was a few years older than me, and I was surprised when he told me that he was not a high priest, but an elder. I wondered a bit at that, but of course I didn't ask him. This man's wife was LDS but had not been active in many years, though he often tried to bring her to various activities. Some years later, I found out, somewhat by accident, that this good brother did not pay tithing because his wife objected to it, and he thought it improper to force the issue over her objections. Therefore, he could not get a temple recommend. For this reason, he couldn't be ordained a high priest.

How would it have been if a mandatory age of ordination to high priest had been established, and someone found out that this good brother was well past the mandatory age and yet was "only" an elder? That would simply not be acceptable. If pride is taken out of the equation, a mandatory age of ordination makes no sense.

If a mandatory ordination age for high priests would be a bad idea (which it would), this would be utterly disastrous, and on several levels. First of all, it would firmly embed the false doctrine that the office of high priest was more virtuous or powerful than the office of elder. Secondly, such a "punishment" is completely at odds with the nature and purpose of Priesthood office, which is not given as a reward nor removed as a punishment. Third, it would surely break down the bonds of brotherhood that should unite Priesthood holders.

If any "young high priest" starts getting prideful and saying uppity things, the bishop can call him in for a private consultation (or dressing down, as the case may warrant), and/or advise the stake president of such activity. I am sure the stake president will help the offending high priest achieve the necessary humility. Offending wives are not above receiving such humbling instruction, though the bishop may opt to try to go through the Priesthood holder before taking it upon himself to call her into his office and tell her to knock it off.

Let's look at this...1/3 of the HP when I was an elder have left the church, some due to apostasy, some due to excommunication.  WHY were they called?  Why were they even ever HP when many of those FAR more righteous, FAR more faithful, were NOT?

Your example is FLAWED.  Why?  In it, you imply the REASON people like me were NOT called as a HP was due to some personal sin.  I was always a faithful temple goer...while I knew some of those who WERE HP who fell away (well, those who were eventually exed) did some pretty BAD things.  Your example itself tries to explain right there that anyone who is not a HIGH PRIEST has some sin.

THAT IS THE CULTURE I am talking about right there.  This attitude is saying that those who are righteous get to be HP at younger ages and if you are NOT one...well...it's because you are a sinner...the members just have to figure it out already. 

This policy would not be so much as to justify those who are in sin (but would be going to HP quorum if they are old enough for cultural purposes below), but to JUSTIFY those who are NOT in sin.  It would negate the rumors and other foolish things we do in this regards.  It would justify those who are just as righteous as those who are favored to be in HP callings, by showing that by being faithful, NOTHING can be held against them.  A HP calling is NOT a popularity contest...and hence anyone who is righteous is equal to everyone else.

If you look at the mandatory HP item, it is for those who are faithful and active and temple going.  Thus, about 50% of those that I talk to if they had remained active would be HP today.  No if's...no ands...no buts.  No complaining to me that I'm part of the problem (because, even though I had the age thing...I eventually became a HP at least...while a Hispanic in the area could be the returned Lord himself...as per at least one of their statements...and not be ordained a HP...ever) because I am not part of the minority population.

The system NOW encourages nepotism, discrimination, and favoritism.  I believe that callings come from the LORD, but I also know at times it is influenced a lot by WHO we know and what we think of the individual at times. 

This idea that the office of High priest is more virtuous or powerful than an Elder is ALREADY firmly rooted in the CULTURE of the LDS church.  You yourself just used an example of it in your items above.

This is one reason why some wards "invite" older elders to go to HP.  This serves to do what it did to you at first.  It is in NO way because you could contribute to the conversation, more likely it was specifically due to how we are instructed to get older Elders to go to HP due to the age differences.  It is supposed to make it so that those who are older do not feel so isolated.  The invite IS EMBARRASSING...but it is deemed to be LESS EMBARRASSING to the Elder than being forced to go long term with younger Elders.  In addition, you were not an OLD Elder in many ways...try being 60 and still being an Elder despite doing all you can, going to the temple monthly, having sent 5 kids on missions and had them return, and being active in the church.  I REMAINED faithful...but 48 is still much younger than 60.  Then be in a ward that does not integrate HP and Elders...or even invite the older Elders to HP group.  People get quite cruel in their assumptions about you.

In truth, a better system is to simply say ALL HP and Elders meet together...and if it is an age thing...then divide the Priesthood into age groups rather than by Who has been favorited in LDS society and those who have not been.

No one should KNOW whether one is actually a HP or Elder unless the calling needs for it to be specified. 

As for the HP's getting Prideful, I have NEVER seen ANYONE dress any of them down...EVER.  That would start to get ridiculous.  Even I, with my sympathy to those who feel ostracized due to this way of doing things would probably not do that.  If there was a call to bring them to church discipline and basically demote them from HP to Elder (if it were even possible), I might do it in an instant if I could have a zero tolerance policy.  Why?  Because after 3 or 4 of these...I can almost guarantee the entire culture of this type of bragging would cease.  The ends would not justify the means for ones who want to brag.  However, right now...dressing someone down?  Seriously...without something in the handbook to back me for that, it would be called unrighteous dominion...and I would be seen MORE in the wrong than anyone else because the culture of bragging is that prevalent.  The same would apply to any Bishop. 

It occurs in subtle and miscellaneous ways constantly.  When parents brag about their kid in the Bishopric at a young age, when a new young individual comes to a ward and is called as a counselor in the Bishopric despite half of the Older gentlemen who are there not being called as a HP (especially when the young individual is white and all the older gentlemen are NOT, one could say that is the sin that some hold against me to a degree), when a wife talks about how hard it is that her husband is in the HP council at 38 years of age, or when a wife says she misses the Elders quorum activities but because her husband is now a HP at the age of 30 they cannot go. 

How about when the old Stake president talks about how priesthood responsibilities rely on how righteous one is, how he was blessed even though it was so hard by being a Stake President, and how his sons are learning the same lessons in their 30s by being a Bishop and one is now also following in his footsteps as a Counselor in the Stake Presidency.  To most that sounds like Nepotism in the stake rather than someone actually being righteous.  No one's going to dress him down.  You know that...I know that.  Everyone knows that.  Unless there is a church policy against it, nothing is going to change this culture.

Of course, the reason they were probably called is that the old Stake President KNEW his sons and if they were good or bad and felt he could call them.  He prayed about it and was told that these would be okay choices.  On the otherhand, he didn't know half the Hispanics, because he isn't Hispanic...he doesn't know the society or most of those who are part of this minority.  He chose from those he knew. 

That still shows an appearance of favoritism.  It gives the appearance of Nepotism.  That does not preclude revelation and a calling being from the LORD, but it is a HUGE factor in having those who are popular or well liked be the ones that seemingly are "called" while those who may be righteous, but are NOT popular, are seen as outcasts for no other reason than they are not part of the "in-crowd."  It is EXTREMELY High School like...and I am convinced there has to be a better way of doing things than how we are handling this in our church today.

I'm certain the twelve KNOW about this.  Uchtdorf has talked about welcoming those who have been offended or ostracized to come back.  It normally isn't the ONLY reason (it seems to be one of the first stepping stones though, offended individuals seem to start looking for other reasons against the church eventually), but it is something that I think we can quell if we take the right steps. 

I have stated, in the end it did turn out that it was a blessing for ME.  There was a reason behind it that I see now.  It is so that I can sympathize with the VAST numbers of people in my area who feel this way, that feel that they are discriminated against, and who I can use myself as an example of one.  I used to feel very alone, but I have found out that there are MANY who are older elders ostracized and ignored through no fault of their own. 

I am NOT in charge of church Policy, but we NEED something that stops this ostracization between calling those who are in the "in-crowd" to being HP and those who are not to remain Elders.  Those who are righteous need to be justified.  There is nothing that can be done under current church policy to stop the culture of bragging or feeling one is more righteous than another due to being called as a HP at a young age or not.  HOWEVER...JUSTICE can be served better if this culture has less legs to stand on by making it so that those who ARE righteous cannot be accused in the ways they are currently being accused in the church today behind their backs in gossip and other means.

Addendum:  The Lord works in mysterious ways.  For ME, it WAS a blessing, though at the time I surely didn't think of it as being like that.  I can see in hindsight how the Lord blessed me in this way to humble me and make me so that I can at least partially understand and sympathize with many of those in my ward.  It is highly possible that I would not be able to do so if I had not had this blessing...odd as that may sound.

However, this difficulty that I brought up in this thread is something that I deal with a LOT these days.  It is normally more encapsulated between discrimination against minorities in my area rather than age...but in many ways it comes from those who point out that there is NO leadership from the minorities in the LDS church in the area, despite have a large number of them as members of the church.  As such, it is something I wrestle with on a weekly basis. 

I may sound as if I have an answer in my posts above, but in truth, this is merely my hypothesizing on answers.  I do not have the answer to their questions, but I fervently hope that the LDS church, which has many wiser leaders than I do, can come to some sort of answer to the many people in their situation which are hurting and praying for just such an answer.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Let's look at this...1/3 of the HP when I was an elder have left the church, some due to apostasy, some due to excommunication.  WHY were they called?  Why were they even ever HP when many of those FAR more righteous, FAR more faithful, were NOT?

Your example is FLAWED.  Why?  In it, you imply the REASON people like me were NOT called as a HP was due to some personal sin.  I was always a faithful temple goer...while I knew some of those who WERE HP who fell away (well, those who were eventually exed) did some pretty BAD things.  Your example itself tries to explain right there that anyone who is not a HIGH PRIEST has some sin.

THAT IS THE CULTURE I am talking about right there.  This attitude is saying that those who are righteous get to be HP at younger ages and if you are NOT one...well...it's because you are a sinner...the members just have to figure it out already. 

This policy would not be so much as to justify those who are in sin (but would be going to HP quorum if they are old enough for cultural purposes below), but to JUSTIFY those who are NOT in sin.  It would negate the rumors and other foolish things we do in this regards.  It would justify those who are just as righteous as those who are favored to be in HP callings, by showing that by being faithful, NOTHING can be held against them.  A HP calling is NOT a popularity contest...and hence anyone who is righteous is equal to everyone else.

If you look at the mandatory HP item, it is for those who are faithful and active and temple going.  Thus, about 50% of those that I talk to if they had remained active would be HP today.  No if's...no ands...no buts.  No complaining to me that I'm part of the problem (because, even though I had the age thing...I eventually became a HP at least...while a Hispanic in the area could be the returned Lord himself...as per at least one of their statements...and not be ordained a HP...ever) because I am not part of the minority population.

The system NOW encourages nepotism, discrimination, and favoritism.  I believe that callings come from the LORD, but I also know at times it is influenced a lot by WHO we know and what we think of the individual at times. 

This idea that the office of High priest is more virtuous or powerful than an Elder is ALREADY firmly rooted in the CULTURE of the LDS church.  You yourself just used an example of it in your items above.

This is one reason why some wards "invite" older elders to go to HP.  This serves to do what it did to you at first.  It is in NO way because you could contribute to the conversation, more likely it was specifically due to how we are instructed to get older Elders to go to HP due to the age differences.  It is supposed to make it so that those who are older do not feel so isolated.  The invite IS EMBARRASSING...but it is deemed to be LESS EMBARRASSING to the Elder than being forced to go long term with younger Elders.  In addition, you were not an OLD Elder in many ways...try being 60 and still being an Elder despite doing all you can, going to the temple monthly, having sent 5 kids on missions and had them return, and being active in the church.  I REMAINED faithful...but 48 is still much younger than 60.  Then be in a ward that does not integrate HP and Elders...or even invite the older Elders to HP group.  People get quite cruel in their assumptions about you.

In truth, a better system is to simply say ALL HP and Elders meet together...and if it is an age thing...then divide the Priesthood into age groups rather than by Who has been favorited in LDS society and those who have not been.

No one should KNOW whether one is actually a HP or Elder unless the calling needs for it to be specified. 

As for the HP's getting Prideful, I have NEVER seen ANYONE dress any of them down...EVER.  That would start to get ridiculous.  Even I, with my sympathy to those who feel ostracized due to this way of doing things would probably not do that.  If there was a call to bring them to church discipline and basically demote them from HP to Elder (if it were even possible), I might do it in an instant if I could have a zero tolerance policy.  Why?  Because after 3 or 4 of these...I can almost guarantee the entire culture of this type of bragging would cease.  The ends would not justify the means for ones who want to brag.  However, right now...dressing someone down?  Seriously...without something in the handbook to back me for that, it would be called unrighteous dominion...and I would be seen MORE in the wrong than anyone else because the culture of bragging is that prevalent.  The same would apply to any Bishop. 

It occurs in subtle and miscellaneous ways constantly.  When parents brag about their kid in the Bishopric at a young age, when a new young individual comes to a ward and is called as a counselor in the Bishopric despite half of the Older gentlemen who are there not being called as a HP (especially when the young individual is white and all the older gentlemen are NOT, one could say that is the sin that some hold against me to a degree), when a wife talks about how hard it is that her husband is in the HP council at 38 years of age, or when a wife says she misses the Elders quorum activities but because her husband is now a HP at the age of 30 they cannot go. 

How about when the old Stake president talks about how priesthood responsibilities rely on how righteous one is, how he was blessed even though it was so hard by being a Stake President, and how his sons are learning the same lessons in their 30s by being a Bishop and one is now also following in his footsteps as a Counselor in the Stake Presidency.  To most that sounds like Nepotism in the stake rather than someone actually being righteous.  No one's going to dress him down.  You know that...I know that.  Everyone knows that.  Unless there is a church policy against it, nothing is going to change this culture.

Of course, the reason they were probably called is that the old Stake President KNEW his sons and if they were good or bad and felt he could call them.  He prayed about it and was told that these would be okay choices.  On the otherhand, he didn't know half the Hispanics, because he isn't Hispanic...he doesn't know the society or most of those who are part of this minority.  He chose from those he knew. 

That still shows an appearance of favoritism.  It gives the appearance of Nepotism.  That does not preclude revelation and a calling being from the LORD, but it is a HUGE factor in having those who are popular or well liked be the ones that seemingly are "called" while those who may be righteous, but are NOT popular, are seen as outcasts for no other reason than they are not part of the "in-crowd."  It is EXTREMELY High School like...and I am convinced there has to be a better way of doing things than how we are handling this in our church today.

I'm certain the twelve KNOW about this.  Uchtdorf has talked about welcoming those who have been offended or ostracized to come back.  It normally isn't the ONLY reason (it seems to be one of the first stepping stones though, offended individuals seem to start looking for other reasons against the church eventually), but it is something that I think we can quell if we take the right steps. 

I have stated, in the end it did turn out that it was a blessing for ME.  There was a reason behind it that I see now.  It is so that I can sympathize with the VAST numbers of people in my area who feel this way, that feel that they are discriminated against, and who I can use myself as an example of one.  I used to feel very alone, but I have found out that there are MANY who are older elders ostracized and ignored through no fault of their own. 

I am NOT in charge of church Policy, but we NEED something that stops this ostracization between calling those who are in the "in-crowd" to being HP and those who are not to remain Elders.  Those who are righteous need to be justified.  There is nothing that can be done under current church policy to stop the culture of bragging or feeling one is more righteous than another due to being called as a HP at a young age or not.  HOWEVER...JUSTICE can be served better if this culture has less legs to stand on by making it so that those who ARE righteous cannot be accused in the ways they are currently being accused in the church today behind their backs in gossip and other means.

Addendum:  The Lord works in mysterious ways.  For ME, it WAS a blessing, though at the time I surely didn't think of it as being like that.  I can see in hindsight how the Lord blessed me in this way to humble me and make me so that I can at least partially understand and sympathize with many of those in my ward.  It is highly possible that I would not be able to do so if I had not had this blessing...odd as that may sound.

However, this difficulty that I brought up in this thread is something that I deal with a LOT these days.  It is normally more encapsulated between discrimination against minorities in my area rather than age...but in many ways it comes from those who point out that there is NO leadership from the minorities in the LDS church in the area, despite have a large number of them as members of the church.  As such, it is something I wrestle with on a weekly basis. 

I may sound as if I have an answer in my posts above, but in truth, this is merely my hypothesizing on answers.  I do not have the answer to their questions, but I fervently hope that the LDS church, which has many wiser leaders than I do, can come to some sort of answer to the many people in their situation which are hurting and praying for just such an answer.

Lots of truth there. When I was called on the high council at 33, there were a few times I really thought I must be important. It was prideful and immature to think think that way I also often felt inadequate..  I really do miss Elders Quorum and all the great people there.  Every called nf holds a special place in my heart and I have needed to serve far more than anyone else has needed me to serve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Your example is FLAWED.  Why?  In it, you imply the REASON people like me were NOT called as a HP was due to some personal sin...Your example itself tries to explain right there that anyone who is not a HIGH PRIEST has some sin.

Someone needs to work on his critical reading skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is in NO way because you could contribute to the conversation, more likely it was specifically due to how we are instructed to get older Elders to go to HP due to the age differences.

Interesting that you claim to know more than my high priests group leader, a good friend and a man of integrity. How do you suppose you (who do not know either me or the situation) know more than the man who made the request?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Someone needs to work on his critical reading skills.

Or you need to work on your explanation.  You stated that you had an Elderly gentleman that was not called to be a High Priest.  You then stated you found out the reason, and it was because he was not paying tithing.  Thus you imply right there, that those who are older Elders are sinners.  This is a GRAVE insult to all those who are righteous and yet are Older Elders.  THIS is the culture that I speak of that is highly discriminatory and makes people unhappy.

Thus, you state that to be fair, discrimination and favoritism is needed in order to justify the sinner.  To do this, you bring injustice to those who are righteous.

My idea is NOT to justify the sinner, but to justify the righteous from those who judge like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Or you need to work on your explanation.  You stated that you had an Elderly gentleman that was not called to be a High Priest.

No, I did not. I said he was older than me. In fact, he was in his early 50s -- hardly "elderly".

Critical reading skills, JJ. They're worth working on.

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You then stated you found out the reason, and it was because he was not paying tithing.  Thus you imply right there, that those who are older Elders are sinners. 

I implied no such thing. That was your inference -- and a wrong one at that. Critical reading skills, JJ.

My point was clear to anyone who wasn't grinding an axe: Had your "mandatory ordination" idea been put into effect, everyone who knew this brother's age and Priesthood office would immediately assume that he was not "worthy", because under your proposal, that would have been the only explanation. As it was, he was simply a 50-something-year-old elder attending the high priest group, hardly an unusual thing. Your proposed solution would cause exactly the problem you claim to want to avoid.

Keeping men's Priesthood office secret is absurd. We don't have secret offices and secret ordinations in the kingdom of God. If a man is ordained an elder or a high priest, the fact is announced publicly at stake conference and a sustaining vote put to the general membership -- preferably before the ordinance takes place.

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Thus, you state that to be fair, discrimination and favoritism is needed in order to justify the sinner.  To do this, you bring injustice to those who are righteous.

JJ, you are so deeply caught up in riding this hobby horse of yours that you are seeing things exactly backward. Quit trying to correct the Church's leadership and look at things as they are. There is no "favoritism" at play here, because a high priest is not "better" or "more privileged" than an elder. Your assumption is faulty, and your proposed cures are much worse than the diseases they are supposed to treat.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

Interesting that you claim to know more than my high priests group leader, a good friend and a man of integrity. How do you suppose you (who do not know either me or the situation) know more than the man who made the request?

Sometimes you can tell the truth, but NOT THE REASON of why someone asks another to do something.

In regards to your question, I do not, but I DO know the instructions we have received on these situations from time to time.  It would be ODD that he would be asking you to do that, as opposed to actually following the suggestions from higher ups in the church that suggest that when an Elder is older in general, that the age differences can make them uncomfortable.  Hence, we ask them to go to the meetings with the High Priests. 

This does not occur in every ward, but it is pretty standard.  The age varies anywhere between 40 to 55, depending on the Stake.  It is FAR more likely your HPGL was following the suggestions of leadership and trying to make you feel at ease with the decision.  From what you stated, you were already uncomfortable and upset with the request...if he had told you that he was doing this because of this type of perception or instruction, it is likely due to former experiences that you may have become even more upset. 

I have seen this happen.  It is precisely because people feel this type of discrimination already, and realize that they are asked to remain an Elder, but go to High Priests as an Elder.  If they have been righteous, at times this feels incredibly insulting.  To further inform someone that, we are going to keep you an elder, but we realize that you are not as young as the other elders and think you would feel more comfortable with people more in your age range...generally will ONLY make someone angrier.  This happens more often than you may realize across the church.  Experience has taught that telling the individual the exact reason sometimes when they come back and asks why...is not the wisest course of action.

Thus, the true reason you were told to go to the HPG was probably simply due to the instructions we have received on this matter (but as in my case, not all wards follow that idea).

When you questioned why, one finds secondary reasons for encouraging someone to go.  To tell someone that they can add to the discussion is actually an honest answer, it's just not the ENTIRE answer.  Thus he finds something that is truth, but is not the actual reason.

Let me give you an example of a situation which is extremely similar.  There is was a young man I was trying to reactivate.  He felt incredibly hostile to the ward and to the church.  I felt that he should come to church.  He had left with his family a while ago, and still had not become a priest or an Elder.  We were trying to raise the number of inactives in our ward to actives, and raise the number of Elders by ordaining many of the unordained adult Aaronic Priesthood holders to become Elders in our ward.  These were part of the ward goals that we had set.  This was under the inspiration of the Stake leadership.

When I went to this family, did I tell them, these are our ward goals and we need you to do this?  Did I tell them that I knew they were inactive and that we wanted to activate them?  No.  I did  not.

They had children, one of whom soon would be 8 years old.  I talked to the Father about his experiences in the church and found he still had a testimony.  I then talked about his children and how wonderful it would be if he could baptize that child in the church.  That I would do everything I could to help him be the one that baptized her if he so wished.

My reasons may not have been the most purest I suppose, as I did this out of duty rather than something I would have done on my free time (and yes, I admit that, visiting members is not something that I actually truly love to do...I'm selfish like that).  However, rather than flat out say the reasons of my being there, as that would go over about as well as a rotting fish in the middle of a small enclosed space in the middle of the summer heat...I told him a secondary truth that was still the truth and still had bearing.  It was this truth that was more important to him to hear at the time, rather than the real reason for my visit (which, yes, was probably selfish and inspired by the goals that we had set.  I am FAR from perfect).

Sometimes relating to someone who is angry or upset the entire truth is not the best approach.  To say something equally as truthful, but perhaps not the real reason, can be a better approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share