Reorganization of the Melchizedek Priesthood

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is a very good point. I think people who want to dilute the calling and role of bishops should think very carefully about what the ramifications and implications of that would be --- think beyond "Hey, it would really lighten his burden and share the load if we . . ."

Overall, not a good thing. 

But the church seems to really want the bishop to focus on the youth. These other duties take away from that focus. I'm not advocating either way, but if the church really wants to shift the responsibility over adults to the Elders Quorum then it seems that an EQ President would need to have more authority. Otherwise its just a shifting of Sunday classes and ministering assignments.

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But the church seems to really want the bishop to focus on the youth. These other duties take away from that focus. I'm not advocating either way, but if the church really wants to shift the responsibility over adults to the Elders Quorum then it seems that an EQ President would need to have more authority. Otherwise its just a shifting of Sunday classes and ministering assignments.

What more authority does the EQ need? I must be missing something. On a practical level the EQ knows what's going on, and can try and get people to help with fellowshipping or the like. Unless you're talking welfare cheques or the like.

Edited April 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[e-eye]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But the church seems to really want the bishop to focus on the youth. These other duties take away from that focus. I'm not advocating either way, but if the church really wants to shift the responsibility over adults to the Elders Quorum then it seems that an EQ President would need to have more authority. Otherwise its just a shifting of Sunday classes and ministering assignments.

That's nothing new.  The bishop and counselors focus is on the youth and has been if it was done properly.  The Elders Quorum president has keys and has all the authority he needs to do this, he just now is over all the MP holders which makes sense to me.  I kind of thought it a little odd that the HP group leader functioned without keys, but I do understand why. 

I was 33ish when called a HP on the high counsel.  In attending other EQ and HP meetings around the stake there was such a difference I saw in the wisdom and knowledge between the two groups.  When I did attend my HP group I often felt I had little to contribute in way of knowledge because  you had such a large pool of guys with experience - I also missed going to Elders Quorum and being with guys my age.  This change is great!

[bluebell]

On 3/31/2018 at 6:45 PM, jkwilliams said:

That’s interesting. We have quite a few high priests in our ward, plus a large elders quorum. It’s going to be a big meeting. 

My husband talked about this as well.  They typically have over 30 elders in elder's quorum.  HP's have roughly 10-15 I think.  

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

What more authority does the EQ need? I must be missing something. On a practical level the EQ knows what's going on, and can try and get people to help with fellowshipping or the like. Unless you're talking welfare cheques or the like.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Every person that needs welfare help still goes through the bishop. Every adult that needs to confess or have a worthiness interview still goes through the bishop. That adds up to a LOT of time the bishop is pulled away from being with the youth. In some wards it is the vast majority of the bishop's time.

I wonder if the bishop will continue to be required to approve all "ministering brothers/sisters" assignments like he was required with home and visiting teaching. That's more time spent on the adults and less on the kids.

Quote

Bluebell-

My husband talked about this as well.  They typically have over 30 elders in elder's quorum.  HP's have roughly 10-15 I think.  

It's the opposite in my ward. We have 1-15 in EQ and 30+ HP. The average age of our Elders is 28. The average age of our HP is 75. Mixing these groups is going to be a real challenge. I anticipate most of the Elders skipping out instead of going to a meeting with older men that outnumber them 2-1.

[rongo]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

No member of the church who is aware of the changes to living the law of consecration should make that mistake.

That's the thing, though. Church members are fine with the abstract thought of the possibility of God instituting lesser laws, as long as the examples are safely in the distant past (like Moses in the wilderness, or the failure of the United Order). When pressed, they don't think that could ever happen in our current time, or in the future (maybe they might concede that in the distant future, as long as it's safely there).

Still though,  some of the worst messes that the church has ever had to deal with have been caused by leadership teaching "reasons why" that were just their opinion.

That's a matter of opinion. The flip side of that is that current church culture shies away from ever giving any explanations about anything, lest it offend anyone or make anyone uncomfortable (or end up being perceived as wrong). For all of people's freaking out about what Brethren thought or said in the 19th century (although almost nobody has actually read it for themselves, and they have no idea, really), it was actually a fruitful theological field where there were a lot of ideas and thoughts expressed, and people didn't feel as threatened by contact with explanations and thoughts they didn't agree with. It was actually a much healthier intellectual environment than today's carefully-worded, tightly-correlated, non-explanatory and non-committal climate we have currently.

Seriously. The one thing the institutional church does not do today is attempt to give any explanations about things. I don't think the Lord has been asked for explanations; at least, nobody has said that he is being or has been asked. The institutional church currently is content with only policy and structural adjustments, not doctrinal or scriptural explanation among the "many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." How many people really expect for there to be doctrinal, scriptural, and revelatory things in the near (not distant) future that aren't simply policy or structural adjustments?

[rongo]

20 hours ago, provoman said:

rongo, I put the quotes in order for a reason. Already this “idea” is beginning to evol into “mormonmyth Gospel Truth”, please consider what Bluebell posted about “opinions”.

As for my myself, I try to stay of the “why did the Church .....” philosophications, because I don’t speak for the Church and I have had to be part of teying to correct someones personal opinion that was received as Gospel Truth.

In a sense, people are expected to expound and explain (give their opinion) when writing and giving talks (when they don't do the "Elder Holland explains this so much better than I ever could, so I'm just going to read his whole talk to you" thing). But, our culture has shifted to the point where most people don't want any actual explanations attempted. That is one big reason why the overall "interestingness" of talks and lessons has declined, even as the content has become more "safe" and bland. Before we entered this era (which has percolated for quite some time now), people were much more mature about disagreeing with some thoughts, but finding value with others ("Well, I don't agree with X or Y, but Z is an interesting though. I haven't thought of it that way, before"). 

Brigham Young used to say that he loved listening to people talk to "find out what kind of Mormonism is in them." I think the current climate doesn't want any of that; but rather, seeks for bland "safeness." 

In a sense, none of us speak for the Church, and in another sense, we all do to a limited extent, as we share our thoughts and experiences with Mormonism and "what kind of Mormonism is in us." Arriving at the lowest common denominator where we all finally become simply extensions of the carefully-worded-but-saying-nothing-really spokespeople is not the ideal, I think. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

In a sense, people are expected to expound and explain (give their opinion) when writing and giving talks (when they don't do the "Elder Holland explains this so much better than I ever could, so I'm just going to read his whole talk to you" thing). But, our culture has shifted to the point where most people don't want any actual explanations attempted. That is one big reason why the overall "interestingness" of talks and lessons has declined, even as the content has become more "safe" and bland. Before we entered this era (which has percolated for quite some time now), people were much more mature about disagreeing with some thoughts, but finding value with others ("Well, I don't agree with X or Y, but Z is an interesting though. I haven't thought of it that way, before"). 

Brigham Young used to say that he loved listening to people talk to "find out what kind of Mormonism is in them." I think the current climate doesn't want any of that; but rather, seeks for bland "safeness." 

In a sense, none of us speak for the Church, and in another sense, we all do to a limited extent, as we share our thoughts and experiences with Mormonism and "what kind of Mormonism is in us." Arriving at the lowest common denominator where we all finally become simply extensions of the carefully-worded-but-saying-nothing-really spokespeople is not the ideal, I think. 

It's called correlation. Everything you describe seems to be a direct result of the correlation process started in the 1950's. It's all very safe, but bland. There isn't much speculation or organized theological reasoning, but that's what is expected and enforced at the local level because of the church-wide correlation program, IMO. Even the prophet and apostles have become correlated to a large extent. There is little expectation for them to expound upon doctrines or share revelatory gospel information beyond policy and organizational changes.

[rongo]

21 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm really confused. Why would this be a lesser law?

In the first place, as I've said before, I sustain and am excited for the change. I really am.  I told my 14 year-old son as we left priesthood session that this was historic, and we talked about the changes in the early 1980s disbanding the seventies quorums and ordaining them as elders or high priests. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that being given a lesser law is somehow not good for or in the best interest of people when given (the people of Moses, for example, or tithing replacing temporal consecration. We obtain tremendous blessings and spiritual power being under the law of tithing, which is a lesser law than full consecration). Hypothetically, if we are under a lesser law, then it is for our own good and best interest, and we will receive all of the blessings that God has for us under that. 

I don't think anyone disagrees that this change (which has been considered, prayed about, and discussed for a long time) largely stems from the net performance of home and visiting teaching over a long period of time. I don't think anyone disagrees that if home and visiting teaching had been doing better than the usual and standard jokes (many a true word is spoken in jest), we would still be doing that program, and we would still have the elders and high priests quorums. 

To borrow from Batman, this change is either the change we need or deserve ---- or maybe it is both. But I think it is a change that God needed to institute because overall the old system wasn't getting it done. I don't think anyone would argue that it was. It is somewhat sad when eras end, and I think that the separated quorums (and the old seventies quorums, too) had their scriptural and doctrinal mandates when functioning properly. 

Again, I think a lesser law simply means that God has to adjust the program downward to try to find a "resonance" we can be more successful at. The new system alleviates a lot of burden and expectation off of most members in favor of placing more burden on far fewer (the EQPresidencies and RSPresidencies). With the way the pendulum swings in the Church as you follow these things, I would not be surprised to see, in a few years, a message of "We're burning out our leaders! We need to have individual accountability on the part of companionships!" in response to the field-testing of this. 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

In the first place, as I've said before, I sustain and am excited for the change. I really am.  I told my 14 year-old son as we left priesthood session that this was historic, and we talked about the changes in the early 1980s disbanding the seventies quorums and ordaining them as elders or high priests. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that being given a lesser law is somehow not good for or in the best interest of people when given (the people of Moses, for example, or tithing replacing temporal consecration. We obtain tremendous blessings and spiritual power being under the law of tithing, which is a lesser law than full consecration). Hypothetically, if we are under a lesser law, then it is for our own good and best interest, and we will receive all of the blessings that God has for us under that. 

I don't think anyone disagrees that this change (which has been considered, prayed about, and discussed for a long time) largely stems from the net performance of home and visiting teaching over a long period of time. I don't think anyone disagrees that if home and visiting teaching had been doing better than the usual and standard jokes (many a true word is spoken in jest), we would still be doing that program, and we would still have the elders and high priests quorums. 

To borrow from Batman, this change is either the change we need or deserve ---- or maybe it is both. But I think it is a change that God needed to institute because overall the old system wasn't getting it done. I don't think anyone would argue that it was. It is somewhat sad when eras end, and I think that the separated quorums (and the old seventies quorums, too) had their scriptural and doctrinal mandates when functioning properly. 

Again, I think a lesser law simply means that God has to adjust the program downward to try to find a "resonance" we can be more successful at. The new system alleviates a lot of burden and expectation off of most members in favor of placing more burden on far fewer (the EQPresidencies and RSPresidencies). With the way the pendulum swings in the Church as you follow these things, I would not be surprised to see, in a few years, a message of "We're burning out our leaders! We need to have individual accountability on the part of companionships!" in response to the field-testing of this. 

I get that you see the change as a good change. I still don't understand why you feel this is a lesser law. From what I can understand instead of two groups of men we have 1. Instead of 2 groups of leaders we have 1. I really don't see a significant change overall and still can't see why one way would be higher or lower than the other. What specifics do you see that makes you feel otherwise.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Rain

[Duncan]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Every person that needs welfare help still goes through the bishop. Every adult that needs to confess or have a worthiness interview still goes through the bishop. That adds up to a LOT of time the bishop is pulled away from being with the youth. In some wards it is the vast majority of the bishop's time.

I wonder if the bishop will continue to be required to approve all "ministering brothers/sisters" assignments like he was required with home and visiting teaching. That's more time spent on the adults and less on the kids.

It's the opposite in my ward. We have 1-15 in EQ and 30+ HP. The average age of our Elders is 28. The average age of our HP is 75. Mixing these groups is going to be a real challenge. I anticipate most of the Elders skipping out instead of going to a meeting with older men that outnumber them 2-1.

that's how my ward is as well, about 10ish elders with about 20 high priests-most of whom don't speak english or are super old, or leave right after sacrament-vibrancy does not define the High Priest quorum! the two younger High priests skip it and seem to hang out in the clerks office or do whatever.

[mnn727]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's called correlation. Everything you describe seems to be a direct result of the correlation process started in the 1950's. It's all very safe, but bland. There isn't much speculation or organized theological reasoning, but that's what is expected and enforced at the local level because of the church-wide correlation program, IMO. 

Good! Then we don't have to listen peoples "pet theory" and have them wander off into bizarre speculation.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Every person that needs welfare help still goes through the bishop. Every adult that needs to confess or have a worthiness interview still goes through the bishop. That adds up to a LOT of time the bishop is pulled away from being with the youth. In some wards it is the vast majority of the bishop's time.

I wonder if the bishop will continue to be required to approve all "ministering brothers/sisters" assignments like he was required with home and visiting teaching. That's more time spent on the adults and less on the kids.

It's the opposite in my ward. We have 1-15 in EQ and 30+ HP. The average age of our Elders is 28. The average age of our HP is 75. Mixing these groups is going to be a real challenge. I anticipate most of the Elders skipping out instead of going to a meeting with older men that outnumber them 2-1.

Tellthem to volunteer for YM or Primary.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's the thing, though. Church members are fine with the abstract thought of the possibility of God instituting lesser laws, as long as the examples are safely in the distant past (like Moses in the wilderness, or the failure of the United Order). When pressed, they don't think that could ever happen in our current time, or in the future (maybe they might concede that in the distant future, as long as it's safely there).

 

 

That's a matter of opinion. The flip side of that is that current church culture shies away from ever giving any explanations about anything, lest it offend anyone or make anyone uncomfortable (or end up being perceived as wrong). For all of people's freaking out about what Brethren thought or said in the 19th century (although almost nobody has actually read it for themselves, and they have no idea, really), it was actually a fruitful theological field where there were a lot of ideas and thoughts expressed, and people didn't feel as threatened by contact with explanations and thoughts they didn't agree with. It was actually a much healthier intellectual environment than today's carefully-worded, tightly-correlated, non-explanatory and non-committal climate we have currently.

Seriously. The one thing the institutional church does not do today is attempt to give any explanations about things. I don't think the Lord has been asked for explanations; at least, nobody has said that he is being or has been asked. The institutional church currently is content with only policy and structural adjustments, not doctrinal or scriptural explanation among the "many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." How many people really expect for there to be doctrinal, scriptural, and revelatory things in the near (not distant) future that aren't simply policy or structural adjustments?

I don’t think anyone shys away from the idea of living a lesser law today in the church. 

What they shy away from is the prophet presenting something as superior and more correct than the previous way in GC when it’s actually a lesser law and caused by failure to live the higher law. 

THAT’S the main focus of pushback. 

Your last paragraph is just frightening (that you actually believe that). 

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Every person that needs welfare help still goes through the bishop. Every adult that needs to confess or have a worthiness interview still goes through the bishop. That adds up to a LOT of time the bishop is pulled away from being with the youth. In some wards it is the vast majority of the bishop's time.

I wonder if the bishop will continue to be required to approve all "ministering brothers/sisters" assignments like he was required with home and visiting teaching. That's more time spent on the adults and less on the kids.

It's the opposite in my ward. We have 1-15 in EQ and 30+ HP. The average age of our Elders is 28. The average age of our HP is 75. Mixing these groups is going to be a real challenge. I anticipate most of the Elders skipping out instead of going to a meeting with older men that outnumber them 2-1.

Well, hopefully the elders can buck up a little.  The RS has been functioning like this for years and years. It’ll be kind of embarrassing if the men can’t handle it. 😏

Edited April 2, 2018 by bluebell

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Good! Then we don't have to listen peoples "pet theory" and have them wander off into bizarre speculation.

I actually don't mind listening to people's "pet theories," even when I think to myself, "Wow, that's really out there." Within reason, of course. Lot's of speculation or explanations do not constitute false doctrine, even though the Church doesn't have a position on it. Let's face it. The Church takes a position on precious little today, theologically, so there is room for speculation. It is our culture (affected by correlation) that frown on this. 

The cost to this is that for every "pet theory" that we don't hear, we also don't hear well-reasoned and inspired explanations, either. Not every thought or insight or observation that people have is "half-baked" or "off the reservation," but our culture beats this down and keeps it at bay. 

That's also why those few people who do "give the nourishing succotash" (Brigham Young's words) in their preaching fill a crying need, and why people respond so well to that. There aren't very many of them, though. Everyone knows who they are in every stake (not the crackpots, but the expounders).

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think anyone shys away from the idea of living a lesser law today in the church. 

What they shy away from is the prophet presenting something as superior and more correct than the previous way in GC when it’s actually a lesser law and caused by failure to live the higher law. 

When have General Authorities ever said, "We've really botched it, and we're going to try something different?" It is always going to be presented as "superior and more correct than the previous way," even when it is in reaction to poor performance. 

Your last paragraph is just frightening (that you actually believe that).

What's scary about it (serious question)?

What instances can you find since OD2 where the Brethren have said they have sought for doctrinal or scriptural explanation for something? What examples can you find of any such explanations?

[Prof]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

In the first place, as I've said before, I sustain and am excited for the change. I really am.  I told my 14 year-old son as we left priesthood session that this was historic, and we talked about the changes in the early 1980s disbanding the seventies quorums and ordaining them as elders or high priests. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that being given a lesser law is somehow not good for or in the best interest of people when given (the people of Moses, for example, or tithing replacing temporal consecration. We obtain tremendous blessings and spiritual power being under the law of tithing, which is a lesser law than full consecration). Hypothetically, if we are under a lesser law, then it is for our own good and best interest, and we will receive all of the blessings that God has for us under that. 

I don't think anyone disagrees that this change (which has been considered, prayed about, and discussed for a long time) largely stems from the net performance of home and visiting teaching over a long period of time. I don't think anyone disagrees that if home and visiting teaching had been doing better than the usual and standard jokes (many a true word is spoken in jest), we would still be doing that program, and we would still have the elders and high priests quorums. 

To borrow from Batman, this change is either the change we need or deserve ---- or maybe it is both. But I think it is a change that God needed to institute because overall the old system wasn't getting it done. I don't think anyone would argue that it was. It is somewhat sad when eras end, and I think that the separated quorums (and the old seventies quorums, too) had their scriptural and doctrinal mandates when functioning properly. 

Again, I think a lesser law simply means that God has to adjust the program downward to try to find a "resonance" we can be more successful at. The new system alleviates a lot of burden and expectation off of most members in favor of placing more burden on far fewer (the EQPresidencies and RSPresidencies). With the way the pendulum swings in the Church as you follow these things, I would not be surprised to see, in a few years, a message of "We're burning out our leaders! We need to have individual accountability on the part of companionships!" in response to the field-testing of this. 

Rango,

Not sure I agree with you, but I appreciate the explanation!!!

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, hopefully the elders can buck up a little.  The RS has been functioning like this for years and years. It’ll be kind of embarrassing if the men can’t handle it. 😏

that's what I think as well. We have the Temple, hopefully being as soon as the weather is less than miserable, but it's going to happen soon and with these semi committed, partially active people something needs to change from now and when the Temple does come. I hope this new way stimulates with killing off anyone

[sunstoned]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I actually don't mind listening to people's "pet theories," even when I think to myself, "Wow, that's really out there." Within reason, of course. Lot's of speculation or explanations do not constitute false doctrine, even though the Church doesn't have a position on it. Let's face it. The Church takes a position on precious little today, theologically, so there is room for speculation. It is our culture (affected by correlation) that frown on this. 

The cost to this is that for every "pet theory" that we don't hear, we also don't hear well-reasoned and inspired explanations, either. Not every thought or insight or observation that people have is "half-baked" or "off the reservation," but our culture beats this down and keeps it at bay. 

That's also why those few people who do "give the nourishing succotash" (Brigham Young's words) in their preaching fill a crying need, and why people respond so well to that. There aren't very many of them, though. Everyone knows who they are in every stake (not the crackpots, but the expounders).

You have given a accurate account of the effects of correlation.  I am old enough to remember before correlation was fully implemented.  Lessons and discussions at church were so much most interesting then.  Now we have a 4 year lesson cycle of very basic, bland material that we hear over and over again.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

When have General Authorities ever said, "We've really botched it, and we're going to try something different?" It is always going to be presented as "superior and more correct than the previous way," even when it is in reaction to poor performance. 

What's scary about it (serious question)?

What instances can you find since OD2 where the Brethren have said they have sought for doctrinal or scriptural explanation for something? What examples can you find of any such explanations?

It's frightening to me that you, as a bishop, believe that the Prophet and apostles can't admit mistakes, that you, as a bishop, believe that the Prophet and apostles haven't asked the Lord for explanations, and that you, as a bishop, believe that the Prophet and apostles are"currently content with only policy and structural adjustments, not doctrinal or scriptural explanation among the "many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God."" 

Also, lack of explanation does not have to mean lack of asking for one.  I don't know about you, but I've asked God for lots of explanations that have not been given or shared with me.  

I guess i'm just surprised because your last few posts have come across to me as you thinking very highly of yourself and your ability to know God's will and to seek it correctly, etc., while thinking much less of the Prophet and Apostles abilities and desires.  

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think anyone shys away from the idea of living a lesser law today in the church. 

After all, is anyone here ignoring that we are living the law of tithing and not the United Order?  How is that example far in the distant past?

[revelstoked]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

After all, is anyone here ignoring that we are living the law of tithing and not the United Order?  How is that example far in the distant past?

I don't think the law of tithing is a lesser law.  The United Order was needed to bootstrap early church communities when some families didn't need to travel far and others needed to sell all they had to arrive.  The law of tithing is more of a "steady state" solution to maintain an already established church.  See this article, between footnotes 13 and 14: https://history.lds.org/article/the-tithing-of-my-people?lang=eng

[Duncan]

58 minutes ago, rongo said:

When have General Authorities ever said, "We've really botched it, and we're going to try something different?" It is always going to be presented as "superior and more correct than the previous way," even when it is in reaction to poor performance. 

 

 

What's scary about it (serious question)?

What instances can you find since OD2 where the Brethren have said they have sought for doctrinal or scriptural explanation for something? What examples can you find of any such explanations?

I have an instance, sort of, to your first question and I can think of another , it's the Pres. Kimball quotation below in the link

in 1984, Elder McConkie gave a talk to BYU Religion people and he said they did a survey at the MTC and they asked 10 questions. The lowest rated questions for testimony were Joseph Smith being a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon is the word of God. He said "Something's wrong, Something terribly's wrong! Maybe it's something i've done wrong. Maybe it's something the brethren have done wrong. Perhaps it's something we've done wrong here at BYU or in our CES, but something clearly is wrong. He then speculated various reasons as to why, like too much emphasis on saying we a christian church and over emphasizing seeking common ground with others. (The Bruce R. McConkie Story, p.305-306)

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/teach-them-correct-principles?lang=eng

Edited April 2, 2018 by Duncan

[Atheist Mormon]

On 3/31/2018 at 7:52 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I wonder if I need to prepare my class now, I know the Elders have a teacher, so who gets released? I would get rid of that Papa guy! 

I definitely would.....You know too much.....