Note: I tried to delay this post because of the Charlie Kirk shooting, but it’s somehow not shifting it for mobile devices and I don’t know how to fix that, so I’m leaving it up. On the shooting, I really don’t have anything to say that isn’t already being said all over the Internet.
As I’ve noted before, I try to keep the “I think this is what the Church should do” genre of post to a minimum, because I think the gospel is so much grander than this or that policy from North Temple Street, that song gets overplayed on the Latter-day Saint thought space radio, and because most suggestions are boringly predictable derivations of the same “the Church should be more like Mainline Protestants” theme.
However, one policy change I’ve always thought was warranted is to routinize the promotion from elder to high priest at a certain age. Unlike every other standard priesthood office (“standard” in this case being an office that the average priesthood holder is likely to hold in their life), the elder-to-high priest transition is not pegged to an age.
I understand that we need hierarchies for the church to run, but this strikes me as being an unnecessary one. Back when they would meet separately, you’d often have a conspicuously older person meeting with the younger elders while his older, wiser, more experienced counterparts were elsewhere. Of course, this matters less now that high priests and elders meet together, so it’s not nearly as clear now as it was before who is a high priest and who is an elder (I actually wonder if some of the motivation for the Church to collapse the meetings was to flatten the kind of spiritual hierarchy that separate high priests group meetings might engender).
But even a long-time, long-serving Church elder can simply “fall through the cracks” in a sense. The bishop has a lot on his plate, I presume he doesn’t have a lot of time to check up on the priesthood ordinations of the older men in his ward and think about forwarding them for high priest ordination. And in a church where position is often conflated with one’s standing before God, the simple act of letting an otherwise worthy elder stay an elder often implies something weightier when it’s really just because the bishop has a lot on his plate.
Also, I’m going to be blunt here, I don’t have a huge amount of confidence that after a certain threshold (long time service in the church, temple recommend worthy, doing their callings, etc.), local, human Church leaders have the ability to accurately rank order the relative spirituality of each older member on some kind of a fine-grained level. Again, I realize that they have to make those kinds of calls when it comes to callings to leadership positions, but we see enough about how the sausage gets made to preclude holding to a framework that assumes that kind of high precision. The glass we see through is darker than that, and people aren’t served by pretending that it isn’t.
I’m not saying that ordination to the high priesthood should be a routinized step right after elder like elder is after priest. I like the idea of having an office set apart for the older, grizzled and/or experienced priesthood holders, so it could be anchored to some age/experience level. For example, all elders older than the age of 50 with, say, 10 or more years in the Church unless they are called to a leadership calling before then. I don’t have a strong opinion about the particulars, but this seems like an easy fix with little downside to avoid spiritually otherizing loyal, older elders.
Comments
27 responses to “Promotion to High Priest by Age”
Nice thought. But some Stake Presidents I have talked to have taken the elimination of the high priests group as the end of the old practice of ordaining older men high priests. I know several older Elders who have had to sit on the sidelines and not participate when their own sons and sons-in-law are ordained and set apart to leadership positions. One son refused a leadership position in a singles’ ward because his father would be “othered” and he could not stand the thought of that. The father appealed to his own Stake President for ordination (he was 60 years old, had served a full-time mission and was a life-long loyal member of the church) and he was rebuffed.
I don’t know. It feels like the current policy, where all MP holders belong to the elders quorum, actually deemphasizes the importance of hierarchy callings like bishop and such.
I was ordained a high priest many years ago. It felt like it was mostly “we don’t have enough high priests to have a group meeting, and you’re kind of old, so…” (I was still in my 40’s! Technically it was “we need an assistant HP group leader,” but still.) I don’t think my ordination as a high priest made any difference in my access to spiritual blessings.
I suspect that the Stake Presidents who “have taken the elimination of the high priests group as the end of the old practice of ordaining older men high priests” have understood correctly.
Perhaps if Curtis is correct a new policy should be implemented to ensure fairness. All new high priests are to ordained by members of the Stake Presidency and current Bishoprics. Other high priests should not be invited to participate, even the fathers, relatives and friends of of those being ordained/set apart.
Expanding on this a bit, when I was set apart in an EQP in a YSA ward, the bishop, without my knowledge, invited my parents, who lived in a different stake, to the event. My father, a HP, assumed that he would participate in the setting apart. The bishop hemmed and hawed for several minutes once he learned that my father did not have a current temple recommend. It was as awkward as possible. He was finally allowed to participate. Not commenting on the appropriateness of what happened, but it was the background when I was administratively ordained a HP (too many elders, too few HPs). For this event no one notified my father, and I did not tell him, because I was unwilling to have the previous scenario repeated.
I like the new policy that only ordains when a calling requires it. I don’t care one way or the other if who performs the ordination is selected by the person being ordained. I’m sure some families care about that, but I suspect that in most cases outside the Mormon corridor, there’s not a conveniently close relative who could step in. I don’t like the unacknowledged policy that a current temple recommend is the gatekeeping step for any calling at the ward level. Or perhaps that is just in my area.
As I understand it, the stake high priests quorum at any given time consists of the stake presidency, the high council, the patriarch, and the collective bishoprics (excluding clerks). I suppose that area and general authorities living within the stake would also qualify. The rest of us who have been ordained high priests are nevertheless considered members of the elders quorum. Anon’s suggestion would allow only members of the HP quorum to participate in new ordinations. That makes a lot of sense to me. I am an ordained seventy, but the thought of my being allowed to participate in the ordination of a new area authority to the office of seventy is absurd.
There was always a competition for talent between the EQ and HP group. When I was EQ president, I stated my position to the bishop that nobody should be ordained a HP solely by virtue of age. (I literally had 90 inactive elders and prospective elders on my rolls. I could not afford to give up any active ones.) I largely stuck by that position as HP group leader, but did not hesitate to ask for elders to fill leadership positions in the group. (I had little choice. The other HPs all had callings that made them unpoachable.) The one exception was for an older guy (around 70) who met with the EQ. It turned out he had no interest in even meeting with us, much less being ordained.
To start at the very title of this post, “promotion” from Elder to High Priest simply admits and perpetuates a lack of understanding of the purpose of the Priesthood as well as the offices of Elder and High Priest. It supports a stratification of church members, a checklist schedule of righteousness, an emphasis of standing and hierarchy in our wards and a focus on the person, not the priesthood.
The purpose of the priesthood is not to make men and boys feel good about themselves. And if the way we organize the priesthood is making people feel bad about themselves, the solution is not to give people a “promotion” to higher status.
If any change should be made, it would be the complete untethering of all priesthood offices to age. A birthday does not make any person worthy of a priesthood office. I don’t see how a church this confused about the function and purpose of the priesthood can have any hope to access any divine power from said priesthood.
And finally, if being a 55 year old Elder is “spiritually otherizing” to a man, then how should every woman in the church view this conversation?
(Yes, my tone is very stern here, but it’s been that kind of day for me and I simply haven’t the time to try to soften this as I probably should.)
DaveW is right. Elders sitting on the sidelines while their sons are being ordained now understand a little how women feel. Ordain them all.
“Nice thought. But some Stake Presidents I have talked to have taken the elimination of the high priests group as the end of the old practice of ordaining older men high priests. I know several older Elders who have had to sit on the sidelines and not participate when their own sons and sons-in-law are ordained and set apart to leadership positions.”
That’s another point I hadn’t thought about. Typically we see the priesthood conferral as a father-to-son thing *when possible* and having this last step that isn’t quite super high calling level but is also relatively common kind of breaks that up.
“I don’t know. It feels like the current policy, where all MP holders belong to the elders quorum, actually deemphasizes the importance of hierarchy callings like bishop and such.”
I agree
“I don’t care one way or the other if who performs the ordination is selected by the person being ordained. I’m sure some families care about that, but I suspect that in most cases outside the Mormon corridor, there’s not a conveniently close relative who could step in.”
So this is a little embarrassing, but I didn’t know that some people fly the father in to ordain people high priests until a few years ago when our bishopric was reorganized. Again, to my point above, I get the benefit of keeping it patriarchal, father-to-son style, but I also see benefits in unmooring it and focusing on the priesthood itself more than the specific chain.
Last Lemming: I do think the Seventy thing is a little atypical, since the “status” of that calling clearly underwent a major adjustment when it was shifted to a general authority/area authority calling.
DaveW: That’s all fair. The ideal would be to not see it as hierarchical at all, but the fact is we do, and the hierarchy is implied in Church rhetoric, both from the pulpit and and the pews, so while we have the hierarchy then sort-of-standardizing it but not really leads to some awkward situations.
And that’s okay, it’s been that kind of day for a lot of us.
Anon and DaveW: I don’t want to turn this into a male-only ordination debate, but briefly, there’s a distinction between not having priesthood office be in your category at all versus being eligible but not receiving it because of your level of righteousness or something. That’s not to say that the former is irrelevant, I just see the two leading to a distinct set of issues.
Thinking back on my recent stint on the high council, in almost 5 years we did not ordain anyone a high priest other than in connection with a calling that required it. I had to check the handbook, and it does say “[high priests] may also be ordained at other times as determined by the stake president through prayerful consideration and inspiration” but that’s it. No reference to age. (We ordained some pretty young high priests, notably counselors in the Young Single Adult ward bishopric.)
I agree that part of the reason for combining the high priest groups and elder’s quorums was to remove that hierarchy. Priesthood office is not in the directory (unless you’re in a calling that gives you access to more information) and most members will not have any reason to know whether someone is an elder or high priest. Maybe some older men feel “less than” because they have not been ordained high priests, but I think that’s mostly based on how things used to be and won’t be an issue in another 10-20 years. Less hierarchy is a good thing.
Even though my father was a high priest we made no effort to have him fly from Utah to Texas to ordain me. I can see how some might like that, but it didn’t really feel necessary.
Interestingly, if I look up my Priesthood line of Authority (in the Tools app or on the Church web site) it has both my ordination as an elder and as a high priest, and it defaults to showing my ordination as elder.
Regarding temple recommends: during an ordination, the presiding authority is supposed to ensure that those participating have the appropriate priesthood and are worthy. For someone from out of town, not known to the presiding authority, a temple recommend is the easiest way to do that. Otherwise, the person’s bishop or stake president should be contacted, preferably well ahead of time. Of course, we are counseled to always keep a current temple recommend, and as a temple worker I will endorse that. (I wonder how the new app-based recommends will work with this, though. Will the authority need to scan the QR code, like we do at the temple?)
It seems that there was an impetus in times past to develop men by raising them to the “high priesthood” (as the early brethren called it). Now it seems the church has made that office more exclusive. If the goal was to reduce a feeling of hierarchy, it failed miserably. One doesn’t reduce hierarchy by ordained fewer high priests. It seems that the way to reduce hierarchy is through a more egalitarian approach. Wouldn’t that be the approach suggested in the Stephen C? The message would be that regardless of where one served, the ultimate outcomes were equal. Having Elders and High Priests in the same quorum does not confirm that. It seems to be a bandaid approach.
I like the new approach. No one knows or cares who in the quorum meeting is ordained to which office.
I like how the new approach reserves the office of high priesthood for callings that involve presiding or the support of a presiding officer. It’s the keys of presidency that holds the church together at the deepest structural level. And so, even though a bishop is ordained to that office — which pertains to the Aaronic priesthood — he is also set apart (and ordained if need be) to be the presiding high priest over his ward.
The keys of presidency allow presiding authorities access to every gift and power that is necessary to officiate as a judge in Israel over their respective stewardships. It’s Savior’s way of endowing his servants with authority to stand in his place and dispense all things necessary to enable his people to move forward on the path that leads to eternal life. And without that power there would be no access to the salvific ordinances of the priesthood.
President Nelson stands as the presiding high priest over the entire church. He is a prime example of Alma’s description of the ordination of ancient high priests wherein he says:
“And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.”
I believe one way of interpreting this verse is to view the Lord’s high priest as the only person through whom the blessings of the fulness of the gospel can be accessed–in the same way that we look to the Savior whose name is the only one given whereby salvation is possible.
And so that pattern is duplicated throughout the church with high priests presiding over every stake, ward, mission, temple, and so forth. They are gate keepers. And as such they stand not only in the place of the Savior but also as cherubim, guarding the way of life. We literally cannot get into the House of the Lord without their endorsement.
Another thing I’d like mention–and this is a bit delicate. I could be wrong–but I think it’s possible that what we’re seeing is a chess move of sorts to prepare the way for a time when women will serve as priestesses with their husbands who are called as presiding high priests.
What the change in quorum structure does is–it clears the way for women to serve in a manner that is patterned after the priesthood they receive in the temple. And so by reserving the ordination of high priest only for those callings that involve presiding there will be less confusion than there might be otherwise as to husbands and wives serving in like manner in other capacities.
As I say–I could be completely wrong about all of this–but I find it interesting to consider the position of temple matron with regard to the afore mentioned–plus the mission president’s wife!
Only time well tell if I’ve got any of this right.
These was a time, when I felt quite hurt that (for whatever reason) I was never advanced in the Priesthood; from Elder to High Priest. After a certain age, I even asked it I could attend the High Priest Group; which I did for several years – until the quorums were combined.
At this point, I no longer feel disappointment – but rather, disgust. Even in “the Mormon World” it’s who you know and what people make up your local network. What the writer proposes should have been done years ago. But, like so many other things in the Church, tradition and culture stamps out most reasonable refinements that could (and should) be made.
I find that I just don’t care anymore…..which is more telling than anything else.
I like the implication of the current policy that the office of High Priest is, for most men, a temporary situation. There are keys associated with being a High Priest and those are necessary for officiating/presiding in certain callings (Bishop-ric, High Council, Stake Presidency). But once someone is released from that calling the are absorbed back into the general body of priesthood holders. They may still, technically, be a High Priest but most of those keys are rescinded (they can still ordain others as High Priests, but that’s about all they have left – the only keys they retain). That means they hold the Melchizedek Priesthood in the same way as the other MP holders (Elders). I like that this emphasizes the distinction between priesthood keys and priesthood offices. It’s the keys that matter. A High Priest doesn’t have MORE priesthood than an Elder. They equally hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is the highest priesthood and all that’s really necessary for men.
A lot of men make a big deal about their priesthood lines of authority and the assumption is that the line is traced back, through Joseph Smith, to Peter/James/John. And the lineage is portrayed as going through the person who ordained someone to the last office to which they were ordained (Elder, HP, Seventy, …). I think this is inaccurate. A priesthood line of authority should simply be through the person who confers the MP, with all subsequent ordinations left out. So, it’s about receiving the MP, not about the office one is ordained to. (I know you can request this line of authority from the Church, and what you’ll get is a lineage of the “highest” ordained office – but I think that not a correct reflection of the lineage).
My point – being a High Priest doesn’t add any value over being an Elder. High Priests serve in other callings, and receive the requisite keys to do so, but that ends the the keys are relinquished upon release from that calling. So, in the end, they’re all “just” MP holders. If I’m to ever to ordained a HP I won’t need to fly my father out to do that in order to keep my priesthood lineage “in the family”. He conferred the MP on me, and that’s how I recognize my priesthood lineage.
@A Turtle Named Mack: I’ve thought about that; I do think that making the “quasi-official” priesthood line of authority (since there are multiple lines per priesthood holder) default to whoever gave you the MP would help some of this.
IMO the combining of the quorums was only done to help the “younger” men in the church stay in the church. We have a problem and are going to continue to have a problem with the younger members leaving. I thought it was funny that they wanted us to meet in quorum circles for whatever and then not much later they combined the quorums. Some large quorums are still circling and that circle is huge. Kind of defeats the circle deal IMO.
Women serve as priestesses right now when they receive the Second Anointing ordinance. This was an ordinance that most members received in the temple since temples started. For some reason they stopped doing them for everyone and now still do them for a select few.
Maybe they will do them for everyone again? Is that what you are talking about/thinking Jack?
What ever they are doing now is just the “way” we do it. Most know that the Aaronic priesthood was exclusively adult men and were called by the bishop to help with ward things. YM having the priesthood and doing those duties is just the way we do it. Bishops were the ones who actually blessed the sacraments. Nobody else.
Everything has changed over the 190+ years. If we live long enough it will all change again.
As Curtis Pew points out, those of us who have been ordained HPs can see our lines of authority in Tools for both offices and it defaults to Elder. No line of authority for my ordination as a Seventy shows up at all. My guess is that the HP line will disappear in a few years too.
A Turtle Named Mack presents an interesting hypothesis. Quotes can be found to counter it. Does anyone know of any doctrinal statements to support it?
REC911,
Yes, I’m thinking along those lines. Though I think it may start as something patterned after what we learn in the temple–that is, if it can be done without the second anointing.
Jack,
I think it would be hard to implement a “new” ordinance when there is already one in place that the general membership is kept from. What the temple is prepping members for regarding kings and queens, is the Second Anointing… IMO.
I think members would need to be ok with baby steps first like the women being witnesses at baptism. Prepping and passing the sacrament, being SS presidents and such being implemented to move the needle. Once we older members die off, the younger members/leaders can make the changes.
Will be interesting to see if/when the church is transparent about the Second Anointing and how members react.
You could be right, REC911–and I certainly agree that these things usually take time. Even so, I’m not convinced that steady incremental change towards parity will be the direction the church goes in–and I mean vis-a-vis the priesthood. It’s obvious that the apostles have loosened up restrictions on aspects of the Kingdom that do not have to be administered directly by one who holds the priesthood–and I think we’re all glad to see those adjustments.
But with regard to preparing members for the kind of growth I’m talking about — and again I claim the right to be wrong! — I think there are two things to consider: first, those who have been through temple–and this would include the majority of faithful adult members–would recognize the pattern of husband and wife “ruling” together as priest and priestess. Second, there have already been steps taken in that direction. I think the temple president’s wife being set apart as the temple matron–at least it’s my assumption that she’s set apart–follows that pattern. And as I’ve previously mentioned–the work that a mission president’s wife does these days is tantamount to partnering with her husband.
And so, as it pertains to callings that involve presiding–I can see a shift towards women serving in ways that echo the order that we see in the temple. And of course, what I really envision is a day–probably Millennial–when governorship in the Kingdom will ultimately follow the heavenly pattern that we learn of in the temple–where large familial systems are governed by husbands and wives who are priests and priestesses after the holy order.
But as things now stand we are involved in a wonderful and exciting step by step process of fulfilling the Lord’s prayer: thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Stephen C.,
Sorry for the threadjack. And just so you know–I was ordained a high priest at the age of 39. And the reason for the ordination was that the HP group in our ward needed more support. And so they identified the two oldest elders in the elder’s quorum–one of them being moi–(and I’m sure there was prayer involved in the selection process) and moved us “up.”
It was kinda funny–being one of the oldest–suddenly becoming one the youngest. But nowadays that distinction is less palpable–a good thing (IMO) especially as temple worship becomes more central to the Latter-day Saint experience and identity as a member of the church.
I’ve noticed a general trend that persists even after combining the quorums. I’ve asked around. It appears that the EQ president is generally still a youngish man, and so are his counselors. (Is this your experience?) Since the church is trying to give more responsibility to EQ and RS presidents to help with counseling and working with adults, it seems an experienced man formerly in a position with keys might be a significant resource that might allow the bishop to focus more on the youth. As it stands, the high priests are being put out to pasture a little early, it seems, when they could still be a valuable resource in the ward.
Opa,
The EQ President holds keys. And good counsel can come from multiple age brackets. And if HPs are feeling ignored, imagine what it is like for older Elders, who have not had your opportunities.
Opa-
In my area, when the change occurred, they released all EQ presidencies regardless of time served. I assumed this was a HQ church leader mandate but could have been a local thing??
They called a HP to lead the EQ in my ward. Every EQ pres I have had since has been HP aged men. To me this has always been a move to have the old guys help they younger guys stay in the church. Nothing more. Actually, ordaining YM sooner, missions sooner, temple changes, temple sooner, Saint Book series, changing For the strength of Youth, mission rules changes, bishops really forced to work with YM, and 10 other changes I cant think of, are all about trying to keep the YM in the church. IMO.