Priesthood session leads to questions

[cinepro]

59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

It will definitely change the dynamic in the meeting.

In my ward, our EQ meetings tended to be very..."entertaining."  We had good lessons, to be sure, but there are a lot of personalities and we all felt a lot of freedom to make jokes and comments that weren't something you would find in the manual.  But we had great attendance because it was a fun place to be.

But in those weeks when we've combined with the HP, it's a very different type of class.  The HP would make the majority of the comments, and it was a much more serious (and boring) meeting.  And I distinctly noticed that more Elders would have their phones out and just disengage from the lesson.

That's just my ward, but it will be interesting to see how different people experience this change.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

-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?

 

I'd go with Elder Cook. He has this idea that the change will unleash the power of the priesthood and he just said that in GC.

[Avatar4321]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'd go with Elder Cook. He has this idea that the change will unleash the power of the priesthood and he just said that in GC.

We desperately need to unleash priesthood power. This world is getting worse

[rongo]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

I don't think the office could ever be eliminated. General authorities have repeatedly taught that one of the very few unable-to-be-delegated things of a bishop is their role as "presiding high priest" over the ward. The revelations state that a bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron must be a high priest (D&C 107:69-73).

So, yes, there is a very good reason that an Elder can not serve as a bishop.  In student wards and branches, elders sometimes serve as counselors, but they can't give recommend interviews. Branch presidents can also be elders, but they do not have the priesthood office of bishop.

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

We desperately need to unleash priesthood power. This world is getting worse

How will that look? The leave your position of importance and “bear down in pure testimony” version, the get involved in local affairs and politics version, the spend more time with your family and  ministering to others version? A combination of these or more?

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

How will that look? The leave your position of importance and “bear down in pure testimony” version, the get involved in local affairs and politics version, the spend more time with your family and  ministering to others version? A combination of these or more?

I'm thinking...something along these lines:

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours 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 agree with most of this.

But why would it be necessary to change the name of the priesthood session? In that name, the word is an adjective that pertains to the session, not a noun referring to the men whol hold it. I presume it would still be OK to call men priesthood holders (another instance of priesthood as an adjective) though not "the priesthood."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding President Oaks.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with most of this.

But why would it be necessary to change the name of the priesthood session? In that name, the word is an adjective that pertains to the session, not a noun referring to the men whol hold it. I presume it would still be OK to call men priesthood holders (another instance of priesthood as an adjective) though not "the priesthood."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding President Nelson.

Well, the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God.  Does "the authority to act in the name of God" session make a lot of sense?  It doesn't make much sense to me.

The term really only makes sense if it's using the word 'priesthood' to refer to the men who hold it, and Elder Oaks emphatically stated that shortening 'the priesthood holders' to 'the priesthood' was not appropriate.  That's why I'm wondering if it will be necessary to change the name of the session.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God.  Does "the authority to act in the name of God" session make a lot of sense?  It doesn't make much sense to me.

The term really only makes sense if it's using the word 'priesthood' to refer to the men who hold it, and Elder Oaks emphatically stated that shortening 'the priesthood holders' to 'the priesthood' was not appropriate.  That's why I'm wondering if it will be necessary to change the name of the session.

It makes sense to me as a shortened form for the session pertaining to the authority to act in the name of God and to those who  hold it.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It makes sense to me as a shortened form for the session pertaining to the authority to act in the name of God and to those who  hold it.

In that same vein, it makes sense to shorted Priesthood holders to 'priesthood' but Elder Oaks said that's not o.k.  Can you elaborate on why your shortened form is appropriate when the other shortened form is?  (Sincere question. I'm not seeing any real difference).

[Calm]

It may also confuse people who assume it is a parallel usage to "Women's Session"

Edited April 2, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In that same vein, it makes sense to shorted Priesthood holders to 'priesthood' but Elder Oaks said that's not o.k.  Can you elaborate on why your shortened form is appropriate when the other shortened form is?  (Sincere question. I'm not seeing any real difference).

I feel awkward presuming to speak for President Oaks, but I'm guessing his objection has to do with transforming an adjective ("priesthood holders") into a noun ("the priesthood") as though the priesthood were a body of men and not the power which they hold.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may also confuse people who assume it is a parallel usage to "women's Session.

But that would be an incorrect assumption. It's not parallel, as it would be if we called it the men's session.

[smac97]

6 hours 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'?  

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

The home teaching program is a response to modern revelation commissioning those ordained to the priesthood to: teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church…and visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties,…to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them; and see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking [D&C 20:42-54].

At one time called "acting teachers" (1909), the name was formally changed to "ward teachers" in 1912. However, for years before that time the effort was informally called "block teaching" because of the geographic way in which families were assigned (Hartley, pp. 375-98). In April 1963, the ward teaching program was expanded and renamed "home teaching," with emphasis "on the responsibilities of the entire priesthood to "watch over the Church' as commanded in the early revelations-to be concerned with the whole family as a group and as individuals" (IE 66 [June 1963]:504).

In a Home Teachers Meeting during general conference in 1966, Marion G. Romney, then an apostle, instructed home teachers to live so that they could always enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost and act under his inspiration in their home teaching responsibilities and to encourage and inspire every family to make and keep the home a truly Latter-day Saint home.

See also the entry for visiting teaching: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Visiting_Teaching

I think the home/ visiting teaching programs were part of an ongoing series of means to implement doctrinal presets.  Acting teachers, then Ward teachers, then home teachers, and now ministering ( visiting teaching appears to trace its roots back all the way to 1842). Varied mechanisms to implement the same doctrinal precepts, changed as needed to suit the needs of the church during a given period.

As to your second question, those who are supposed to attend are the holders of the priesthood.  I suppose it could be called the general men's session. I doubt that will happen though.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

See also the entry for visiting teaching: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Visiting_Teaching

I think the home/ visiting teaching programs were part of an ongoing series of means to implement doctrinal presets.  Acting teachers, then Ward teachers, then home teachers, and now ministering ( visiting teaching appears to trace its roots back all the way to 1842). Varied mechanisms to implement the same doctrinal precepts, changed as needed to suit the needs of the church during a given period.

As to your second question, those who are supposed to attend are the holders of the priesthood.  I suppose it could be called the general men's session. I doubt that will happen though.

My first question was actually in regards to combining elders quorum and High Priests Group.  

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that would be an incorrect assumption. It's not parallel, as it would be if we called it the men's session.

But a lot of people have gotten in the habit of substituting "the Priesthood"*** when they really mean "the men" and this usage parallels it for them quite nicely, even if incorrectly.  

****"We thank the Priesthood for helping set up tables" for example.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm thinking...something along these lines:

 

By the Power of Grayskull!

[mfbukowski]

8 hours 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.

I in no way see this as a lesser law.  I see it as a great efficiency in priesthood administration. 

Regardless it is what we need right now.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

It will definitely change the dynamic in the meeting.

That’s not all it will change the dynamic of:

[Rain]

9 hours 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.

Then it makes sense that women should be attending as well -women may not hold it, but we are blessed by it and carry out our callings through it, especially in light of what President Oaks spoke.  I like having the seperate meetings with men and women. In no way do I wish to combine them. I think we each have unique strengths and responsibilities. I do think that what Bluebell says about the name the meeting makes sense though.

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But a lot of people have gotten in the habit of substituting "the Priesthood"*** when they really mean "the men" and this usage parallels it for them quite nicely, even if incorrectly.  

****"We thank the Priesthood for helping set up tables" for example.

I’m quite aware of that. I guess President Oaks is calling a halt to that idiom. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How will that look? The leave your position of importance and “bear down in pure testimony” version, the get involved in local affairs and politics version, the spend more time with your family and  ministering to others version? A combination of these or more?

I am going to go with the "hide in my bomb bunker and eat astronaut ice cream" version.

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

Then it makes sense that women should be attending as well -women may not hold it, but we are blessed by it and carry out our callings through it, especially in light of what President Oaks spoke.  I like having the seperate meetings with men and women. In no way do I wish to combine them. I think we each have unique strengths and responsibilities. I do think that what Bluebell says about the name the meeting makes sense though.

Since the priesthood session started being aired, I think my wife has "attended" every session....

I'm like - I don't attend your Relief Society sessions....

[Rain]

53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Since the priesthood session started being aired, I think my wife has "attended" every session....

I'm like - I don't attend your Relief Society sessions....

I have "attended" online, though not always on the same night. I have a husband and sons and I think it wise to learn what they have been taught so that I can support them. I appreciate that my husband listens to the women's sessions as well. 

I recognize though that the 2 sessions are geared towards men or women. That the invitation is meant for one or the other, but not both, because of its focus. So when my husband and son leave for the priesthood session (a good tradition) I don't attend with them,  nor they when my daughter and I go to the women's session. 

What I was saying didn't really have anything to do with attendance, but how if the priesthood session is named such for the reason stated then it should be for both men and women, however after bluebell's question, it seems fitting that the name doesn't really apply the way I had thought before. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Rain

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 I guess President Oaks is calling a halt to that idiom. 

I agree.

I also think if Priesthood session continues to be called that, it will prolong the usage.  Doesn't mean it should be changed.