Priesthood session leads to questions

[bluebell]

I didn't specifically sit down and watch the Priesthood session but I was in the same room as the TV so heard a lot of it.  Lots of good stuff.  I loved it.

I loved Pres. Nelson's talk on how we often live below our privileges (using the example of how members sometimes don't know the difference between a prayer and a blessing).  I loved how Elder Oaks (IIRC) reiterated strongly that the men are not 'the priesthood' and shouldn't be referred to by that title.

These two issues have brought to questions to my mind though.  

-First, If Rongo is right about the change in Elders and HP is because we are now living a lesser law, why wouldn't the Prophet just tell us that?  Why pretend that it's a good thing rather than not.  Pres. Nelson's talk shows that they don't shy away from letting us known when we need to change or improve or have failed to live up to what God wants of us.  Is there a precedent for Heavenly Father implementing lesser laws and not telling His children that's what's happening?

-Second, will the priesthood session of conference be changed to a different name since it's not appropriate to call men 'the priesthood'?  

[MorningStar]

I've always thought it was weird for the men to be split up. We don't have old lady Relief Society and young lady Relief Society. I'm happy for the change so more families can get to know each other and learn from each other. My husband has always been in Scouts and will probably never have a high priest calling. He was starting to wonder if they would just adopt him because he's getting old. Haha! 

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't specifically sit down and watch the Priesthood session but I was in the same room as the TV so heard a lot of it.  Lots of good stuff.  I loved it.

I loved Pres. Nelson's talk on how we often live below our privileges (using the example of how members sometimes don't know the difference between a prayer and a blessing).  I loved how Elder Oaks (IIRC) reiterated strongly that the men are not 'the priesthood' and shouldn't be referred to by that title.

These two issues have brought to questions to my mind though.  

-First, If Rongo is right about the change in Elders and HP is because we are now living a lesser law, why wouldn't the Prophet just tell us that?  Why pretend that it's a good thing rather than not.  Pres. Nelson's talk shows that they don't shy away from letting us known when we need to change or improve or have failed to live up to what God wants of us.  Is there a precedent for Heavenly Father implementing lesser laws and not telling His children that's what's happening?

-Second, will the priesthood session of conference be changed to a different name since it's not appropriate to call men 'the priesthood'?  

I think this is Rongo’s opinion. It does not make him correct. I think it would be presumptuous to teach this is why the change happened. To me, his opinion is not doctrine. I think it is a good change and will bring more unity. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by bsjkki

[Jeanne]

Actually..and perhaps I am so muchwrong..but I am thinking this will give more Elders returning home on missions more responsibility and more active.

[bluebell]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I think this is Rongo’s opinion. It does not make him correct. I think it would be presumptuous to teach this is why the change happened. To me, his opinion is not doctrin. I think it is a good change and will bring more unity. 

I definitely agree.

I'm trying to judge the merit of his opinion and am wondering if there is any evidence to support it.

[Duncan]

I don't know about this higher and lower law stuff, it can lead to discouragement and disaffection. if someone were to tell me you aren't doing enough, despite your best efforts, well, what is the point of doing it more? it's this carrot on a string thing, no matter what you do, it's never enough and at some point you just burn out and quit

 

[rpn]

The number of wards where HP's felt put out to pasture, and older men who were not HP felt diminished is huge.   My dh came home and said it's the way it should always have been.   I didn't see what Rongo wrote, but the strong notation that there is no "advancement"  in priesthood offices (I'm assuming they mean that for the Melchezidic (sp?) priesthood) suggests it is part of a whole sale scuttling of the things we've done that have resulted in members thinking callings and church administration suggested better/more important when we all need to be working more on ministering and in following Christ.
"

[RevTestament]

Although I sense a definite rhetorical nature to your questions, I will say this for the benefit of the new or non-member.

1. What exactly would be the "lesser law"? I see the move as intending to help the elders' quorums. I could be wrong. But I fail to see how that is living some lesser law. It could be a reflection that elders are struggling somewhat in comparison to years past, but that is not really living a lesser law of some sort. Struggling in one's testimony is usually a reflection of a secular world getting in our lives.  Struggling testimonies do not equate to living some lesser law, but perhaps struggling to live the current ones. The Lord has not given some lesser law.

2. Priesthood session should be a time to meet and learn about and discuss the priesthood - its blessings and responsibilities. No need to change the name. It is quite appropriate. Participants just need to remember it  is not about themselves, but how to be better servants to Him who brought us the priesthood - how to live as brothers to our brothers and sisters in the gospel.

Edited April 1, 2018 by RevTestament

[2PairsofCletes]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I definitely agree.

I'm trying to judge the merit of his opinion and am wondering if there is any evidence to support it.

Sure there is. It happened to Moses and the Israelites. They couldn't live the higher law, so it was taken from them, and they lived the lower law

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, rpn said:

The number of wards where HP's felt put out to pasture, and older men who were not HP felt diminished is huge.   My dh came home and said it's the way it should always have been.   I didn't see what Rongo wrote, but the strong notation that there is no "advancement"  in priesthood offices (I'm assuming they mean that for the Melchezidic (sp?) priesthood) suggests it is part of a whole sale scuttling of the things we've done that have resulted in members thinking callings and church administration suggested better/more important when we all need to be working more on ministering and in following Christ.

You post the truth.  I know it shouldn't be this way, but I have heard conversations many times where men were asking others or discussing how young they were when they were made a High Priest (like it was a promotion to brag about).  I know of several men who were older and still in the Elder's quorum and had begun to feel badly about that.  It becomes obvious as men get older and remain an Elder who those are that have not been called to leadership positions that involve becoming a High Priest to serve in that calling.

So, related to those who may have experienced similar feelings, this is a positive move.

I do wonder if the record keeping will become a nightmare (if it's still going to be separated into stats for the Elders and for the High Priests) if they don't lump them all together for this.  Are they going to separate the Home Teaching (like they do now) or lump those all together as well?  There will be some adjusting and some growing pains.

There are many reasons I believe they might be easing into just doing away with the office of High Priest.  In thinking about this, is there any reason an Elder could not serve in a Bishopric or other leadership positions?  Is that a set doctrine?  I'll look that up too.  But, this change could possibly easily be made to simplify even further, IMO.

Edited April 1, 2018 by ALarson

[rpn]

Most church members don't even understand that the HPGL didn't even have priesthood keys: that the EQP was after the Bishop in authority.   And I thought it was clear that there is only going to be ONE priesthood quorum in each ward and it is the Elders quorum in which all are assigned, unless they serve in one of the few positions that makes them part of the Stake HP quorum.

Yes the reporting will be for everyone, hopefully the HTing companionships will help with mentoring (though sometimes it will be a young man mentoring an older one who supposedly knows better/more).

The office of High Priest is scriptural which is why it will never go away.

Edited April 1, 2018 by rpn

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't know about this higher and lower law stuff, it can lead to discouragement and disaffection. if someone were to tell me you aren't doing enough, despite your best efforts, well, what is the point of doing it more? it's this carrot on a string thing, no matter what you do, it's never enough and at some point you just burn out and quit

 

I hear you and agree.  At the same time though, if I'm not doing something right, I want to be told so that I can correct it.  I don't want them to pretend it's right.   

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Although I sense a definite rhetorical nature to your questions, I will say this for the benefit of the new or non-member.

1. What exactly would be the "lesser law"? I see the move as intending to help the elders' quorums. I could be wrong. But I fail to see how that is living some lesser law. It could be a reflection that elders are struggling somewhat in comparison to years past, but that is not really living a lesser law of some sort. Struggling in one's testimony is usually a reflection of a secular world getting in our lives.  Struggling testimonies do not equate to living some lesser law, but perhaps struggling to live the current ones. The Lord has not given some lesser law.

2. Priesthood session should be a time to meet and learn about and discuss the priesthood - its blessings and responsibilities. No need to change the name. It is quite appropriate. Participants just need to remember it  is not about themselves, but how to be better servants to Him who brought us the priesthood - how to live as brothers to our brothers and sisters in the gospel.

Nope, they are not rhetorical.  I want to understand both issues better.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Nope, they are not rhetorical.  I want to understand both issues better.

OK. Well, my answers still apply. They are in also in response to every member of the Church, who have these or similar questions. I suppose it is good to reflect on these things from time to time.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, 2PairsofCletes said:

Sure there is. It happened to Moses and the Israelites. They couldn't live the higher law, so it was taken from them, and they lived the lower law

Yes, but they knew they were living a lesser law.  Is there any time when HF took a higher law away and implemented a lesser law but did not tell His children that's what He was doing but instead presented the change as superior to the old way?

[Bernard Gui]

I understand why Aaronic quorums meet separately....developmental differences, distinct duties, benefits of small group instruction, etc. Many times I have asked myself why the adult Priesthood groups met separately. It never made sense to me. I felt it weakened both groups and created unnecessary and unnatural divisions.

For example, our latest bishopric change took 3 strong elders out of that group. They weren’t replaced out of nowhere by three more elders. When they are released they would have gone back into a group that already has 4 former bishops, several high councilors and stake presidency members, etc. This always seemed counterproductive and counterintuitive to me. 

I think it’s a great move. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I didn't specifically sit down and watch the Priesthood session but I was in the same room as the TV so heard a lot of it.  Lots of good stuff.  I loved it.

I loved Pres. Nelson's talk on how we often live below our privileges (using the example of how members sometimes don't know the difference between a prayer and a blessing).  I loved how Elder Oaks (IIRC) reiterated strongly that the men are not 'the priesthood' and shouldn't be referred to by that title.

These two issues have brought to questions to my mind though.  

-First, If Rongo is right about the change in Elders and HP is because we are now living a lesser law, why wouldn't the Prophet just tell us that?  Why pretend that it's a good thing rather than not.  Pres. Nelson's talk shows that they don't shy away from letting us known when we need to change or improve or have failed to live up to what God wants of us.  Is there a precedent for Heavenly Father implementing lesser laws and not telling His children that's what's happening?

-Second, will the priesthood session of conference be changed to a different name since it's not appropriate to call men 'the priesthood'?  

Elder Holland called this change in organization maturing. I will take his word over that of people on the internet.

Calling it a Priesthood Conference will probably continue. Quorums will still be called Priesthood Quorums and people will still be called Priesthood holders. If I understood correctly it is just referring to Priesthood holders collectively as “the Priesthood” is incorrectly. I expect saying “We need more Priesthood” for things like Youth Temple trips is probably okay as a shorthand but I could be wrong.

[Doctrine 612]

As I have been studying this change and listening to the talks on it over the last 18 hours.
The one thing that points out to me is that even if you hold a certain office you are not always functioning in that office.

Example a bishop is always a bishop but when he is released he is no longer using that office but using the office of elder.

[Kenngo1969]

I admit, I couldn't attend the Priesthood session ($#@!! work!), and the only exposure I've had to the changes is through The Deseret News (thank you, Jason Swensen! ), but I would think that it's not uncommon for higher-law to lesser-law changes to be accompanied by some sort of call to repentance (however mild).  Brother Swensen's coverage certainly doesn't have any kind of "call-to-repentance" feel to it:

 https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900014550/president-nelson-announces-major-changes-to-structure-of-lds-priesthood-quorums.html.

Then again, perhaps I'm simply tone-deaf.    Personally, as much as the High Priests might miss being able to speculate on the location of Kolob in their group meetings , I believe I'm going to like the change. (I admit, one reason for that is that I'm getting rather long in the tooth for an Elder ... ) Occasionally in the past, I have been pressed into service for High Priests Group service projects when they could use more personnel.  I suppose I'll just have to retire my "Low Priest" jokes, now.  

Brotherhood is a good thing: I see this change increasing it.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Most church members don't even understand that the HPGL didn't even have priesthood keys: that the EQP was after the Bishop in authority.   And I thought it was clear that there is only going to be ONE priesthood quorum in each ward and it is the Elders quorum in which all are assigned, unless they serve in one of the few positions that makes them part of the Stake HP quorum.

Yes the reporting will be for everyone, hopefully the HTing companionships will help with mentoring (though sometimes it will be a young man mentoring an older one who supposedly knows better/more).

The office of High Priest is scriptural which is why it will never go away.

I agree but there are four Priesthood Quorum’s in a ward (I think you meant one Melchizedek Priesthood quorum). There are a few members of a fifth but it is still a stake level quorum.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

As I have been studying this change and listening to the talks on it over the last 18 hours.
The one thing that points out to me is that even if you hold a certain office you are not always functioning in that office.

Example a bishop is always a bishop but when he is released he is no longer using that office but using the office of elder.

Also patriarchs, sealers, seventies often fall into these categories.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

-Second, will the priesthood session of conference be changed to a different name since it's not appropriate to call men 'the priesthood'?  

They clarified this last night.  The Priesthood Session will still be referred to as the "Priesthood Session", but the women's meeting in the fall will now be called the "Don't-Have-The-Priesthood Session."

Edited April 1, 2018 by cinepro

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I loved how Elder Oaks (IIRC) reiterated strongly that the men are not 'the priesthood' and shouldn't be referred to by that title.

 I liked that too, but it kind of killed the joke that woman can hold the priesthood...by hugging their spouse.

Edited April 1, 2018 by pogi

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

 I liked that too, but it kind of killed the joke the woman can hold the priesthood...by hugging their spouse.

I consider that more a bonus than a liability.

[Kenngo1969]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Elder Holland called this change in organization maturing. I will take his word over that of people on the internet. ...

Silly Cal!   That's just crazy talk!