What is a high priest, anyway?

[Vort]

In ancient times, a "high priest" was simply a holder of the high (or Melchizedek) Priesthood, e.g. Alma 13:9. Later, during the time of the law of Moses, the "high priest" was the Aaronic priest who officiated and led the other Levitical priests. The Book of Mormon appears to extend this usage of "high priest" as the Priesthood holder who had responsibility over the people in an area (e.g. Alma 4:4, 30:20)

In modern, post-Restoration usage, a "high priest" is someone ordained to the (modern) office of "high priest". Until now, high priests have met in their own quorum with their same-officed Priesthood brethren. Even today, the high priests quorum still exists -- only it doesn't include the stake's high priests any more, only those with stake-level Priesthood leadership callings (including bishopric members).

So what does this all mean? How is it right or reasonable that high priests and elders meet together in an "elders quorum"? Forthwith, you will get Vort's ideas on the topic.

When men receive the Priesthood, they receive "all the Priesthood" that the Lord has given to mankind. There is no difference in the "amount" or the "quality" of Priesthood between the newest elder and the President of the Church himself. It's all the exact same Priesthood, and the exact same amount of Priesthood authority (whatever that means). The office of elder is perfectly sufficient to allow a man to enter into exaltation and to bless his family with whatever he is required to bless them with. In that sense, office is irrelevant.

But offices exist in the Priesthood for fulfilling certain callings within the kingdom of God. All men serving in Priesthood leadership, except for that leadership within the quorum itself, must hold the office of high priest. This office is really (IMO) sort of an addition to allow an ordering of the kingdom. The Priesthood doesn't change, just the assignment. Similarly, if a man is called to serve as a seventy (or an apostle), he must be ordained to the office of seventy (or apostle). The assignment changes; the Priesthood is one.

So what happens when a bishopric member or stake president or seventy or member of the First Presidency who isn't otherwise called as a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles is released? Naturally, they no longer have those extra responsibilities. Their Priesthood office doesn't change, but their Priesthood assignment defaults to the basic: the duties of the office of an elder in Zion.

This is surely why the ward Melchizedek Priesthood quorum is called an "elders quorum" instead of, say, a "Melchizedek Priesthood quorum". The duties of elder are basic to all Melchizedek Priesthood service. Those who are not actively serving in stake-level (or area- or general-level) Priesthood leadership callings are serving as elders, so it is only right that the quorum of the ward's Priesthood holders be called the "elders quorum".

There is an unfortunate tendency that has been observed in some places where the high priests are considered the "adult Priesthood" and the elders are seen as "trainees". I did not see this very much in my own wards, but I understand it was present in other wards, sometimes vehemently so. This was exacerbated by the idea that if a man reaches middle age without being ordained a high priest, he should be "graduated" to the high priests group. But there might be a presumed deficiency in the guy, because after all, he wasn't really a high priest. When the high priests group sustained a new leadership, he (the older elder) didn't vote. When the high priests quorum held their annual meeting, he was invited to attend and welcomed, but always as something of an outsider.

In this sense, I'm really very glad to see the quorum and group distinction done away. To my mind, it seems right and natural that the men of the Priesthood meet as a group, rather than dividing by "rank" -- especially when that "rank" is non-existent, at least in the way the term is usually understood. I look forward to meeting with the brethren of my elders quorum next week and figuring out with them how all of this shakes out.

[Just_A_Guy]

Vort, you may enjoy these:

http://juvenileinstructor.org/contextualizing-quorum-changes/

http://boap.org/LDS/Historical-Analysis-the-Doctrine-and-Covenants/An-Historical-Analysis-of-D&C-107.html

https://boaporg.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/joseph-smith-john-pack-and-the-high-priesthood-part-3/

Edited April 3, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Growing up prior to the dissolution of the stake-level seventies, we had three levels of MP quorums / groups.  The general feeling was more pronounced then.

An elder was simply an adult male.  If a man was called into leadership, then he was ordained a high priest.  If by a certain age, he was never called to a leadership position, then he was ordained a seventy.  I'm sure there were justifications made.  But that seemed to be the pattern of things.

When they got rid of the seventies, those who were previously seventies were allowed to meet with whichever class they felt like.  After they got settled, they were counted on their rosters and their home teaching routes.  After some time, seventies were ordained as high priests simply because of age.  It shouldn't have been.  But it was so.

My father-in-law (Lehi) was fortunate enough to have been in wards where they followed the procedure.  Unless he was called to leadership, he was not ordained as a high priest.  It was only in the last few years (I forget which year since I wasn't actually present at the ordination) the Stake President spoke with him and asked why he was still a seventy.

The answer was simple:  Because that was the last office to which I was ordained.  The Stake President thought there was something wrong with this.  So, instead of doing it properly by calling him to a leadership position, he simply decided to present him to the stake to ordain him to the office of high priest.

Secretly, he was hoping to die a seventy.  He would be the last un-quorumed seventy in the Church.  As it was, he probably already was.  He thought it was cool being the last seventy.  He had two sons and two sons-in-law who were high priests.  And he was ok with that.  He didn't see it as a "status" he needed to reach.  He simply was the last seventy.

To see how this had any significance, I'll repeat a report on a family gathering that I wrote about a while back that was quite interesting.  We had at the time, two high priests (one of which was a bishop) one seventy, several elders, two priests, two teachers, and two deacons.  As I recall, I believe there was a question about who was to preside.  If it were treated like a ward or branch, the senior high priest would be presiding - the one who was a bishop.  But as it was a family gathering, he was the patriarch, so he'd be presiding as the patriarch.

My memory is hazy on this so I don't remember what we decided.  But since there was no "ward business" or "sustaining" or anything like that, it didn't really matter.  There was some minor decision to be made regarding the sacrament.  We handled it somehow.

[JohnsonJones]

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

To see how this had any significance, I'll repeat a report on a family gathering that I wrote about a while back that was quite interesting.  We had at the time, two high priests (one of which was a bishop) one seventy, several elders, two priests, two teachers, and two deacons.  As I recall, I believe there was a question about who was to preside.  If it were treated like a ward or branch, the senior high priest would be presiding - the one who was a bishop.  But as it was a family gathering, he was the patriarch, so he'd be presiding as the patriarch.

My memory is hazy on this so I don't remember what we decided.  But since there was no "ward business" or "sustaining" or anything like that, it didn't really matter.  There was some minor decision to be made regarding the sacrament.  We handled it somehow.

Of interest, there is a third Priesthood which is actually part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood.  It is a term that I think many don't remember or have forgotten about. 

Under this Priesthood there were actually TWO prophets in the beginning of the church, though one was the Prophet of the Lord in status and as such was over the church, but...and some would consider it ironically so, due to his relation to the other prophet, was also subsidiary to the other in regards to the patriarchal order of things.

In this, Joseph Smith Sr. was ordained as the Church Patriarch as he was the Father of Joseph Smith Jr. and hence in the Patriarchal order, ahead of Joseph in presiding in regards to Family matters and family counsels.  However, this does not mean he had ANY authority over the church itself except in his calling as the church patriarch, for this head of the church was given to his Son in his son's authority as the Prophet and the keys inherent thereof.

The Highest order of the Priesthood, however, is NOT that of the High Priesthood, but that of the Patriarchal Priesthood.  The Patriarchal order of the Priesthood is the Highest order of the Priesthood.

An excellent talk on the Patriarchal Order

Dean Larson Marriage and the Patriarchal Order

Quote

In the Lord’s system of government, every organizational unit must have a presiding officer. He has decreed that in the family organization the father assumes this role. He bears the priesthood ordination. He is accountable before the Lord for this leadership.

 

Thus, in the church a Father may have a subservient position or priesthood to his son, BUT within the Family Unit, the Father always presides and is ALWAYS in charge.  A similar situation could be seen with many General Authorities today.  They have their authority within the church, but within their wards, it is normally the ward leadership that determines callings and ordinations to the priesthood.  They each have their separate authority and spheres to manage.

More on this stated more succinctly than I have stated by Lynn McKinlay

Patriarchal order of the Priesthood

Quote

To Latter-day Saints, the patriarchal order of the priesthood is the organizing power and principle of celestial family life. It is the ultimate and ideal form of government. It answers the query of Elder Parley P. Pratt: "Who can endure to be forever banished and separated from father, mother, wife, children and every kindred affection and from every family tie?" (Pratt, Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine 23 [Apr. 1932]:59).

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there are two priesthood divisions: the Aaronic and the Melchizedek. The highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood is patriarchal authority. The order was divinely established with father Adam and mother Eve. They are the fount and progenitors of all living, and they will appear at the culmination of earth's history at the head of the whole sealed family of the redeemed. The promises given to Abraham and Sarah pertain to this same order.

Three principles underlie the patriarchal order. First, the primal parents of the race were in their paradisiacal state in Eden united in eternal bonds before death entered their lives. Second, the fall of man and the continual source of degeneration in this world have resulted in the estrangement of parents from God, from each other, and from their children. Third, the healing of this broken harmony is the essence of eternal life, as is the perpetuation of powers of creation and procreation-eternal increase.

The patriarchal order is, in the words of Elder James E. Talmage, a condition where "woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood," where husband and wife minister, "seeing and understanding alike, and cooperating to the full in the government of their family kingdom" (Young Woman's Journal 25 [Oct. 1914]:602-603). A man cannot hold this priesthood without a wife, and a woman cannot share the blessings of this priesthood without a husband, sealed in the temple.

Concerning patriarchal authority, the Prophet Joseph Smith admonished the Saints: "Go to and finish the [Nauvoo] temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood" (TPJS, p. 323, cf. D&C 107:18, 20). This priesthood and its associated powers were introduced in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1843. It was first conferred upon the First Presidency, the apostles, and their wives (WJS, pp. 244-45).

Today dedicated husbands and wives enter this order in the temple in a covenant with God. The blessings of this priesthood is given only to husbands and wives together. Their covenants extend beyond this life (D&C 76:59, 60), beyond death (D&C 132:20-24), and into the resurrection, to eternal lives, the eternal giving and receiving of life.

Thus united, they work in love, faith, and harmony for the glorification of their family. If they are not united in obedient love, if they are not one, they are not of the Lord. Eventually, through this order, families will be linked in indissoluble bonds all the way back to the first parents, and all the way forward to the last child born into this world. This priesthood order will be both the means and the end of reconciliation, redemption, peace, joy, and eternal life. LYNN A. MCKINLAY

 

In conglomeration, the Patriarchal Priesthood is the Highest Order, but that does not mean that one who is part of this order fulfills all the roles of the church or can.  Different orders of the Priesthood fulfill different needs and obligations.  Thus, an Elder who is a member of this Patriarchal Priesthood will have the honor of leading his family unit, even if his sons are High Priest, but he does not have the authority or keys that they possess to direct the church as the Lord's representative in their office.  However, in regards to his family, his authority supersedes theirs. 

However, ultimately, it is this Patriarchal Order which will be of effect in Heaven, and to be part of the Highest degree of Heaven, one MUST be part of this Patriarchal order

Quote

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

“And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

“And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

“He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Confusing...eh?

Perhaps an easier way for Americans to understand it...in the United States we have Governors, we have Congressmen, and we have Judges.  A Governor governs his own state, and in regards to his state government and actions of those in the state, his word is the executive, even over those of the Congressmen while they reside in the state.  The congressmen cannot order a Governor to do things with executive orders in regards to his state (family).  The Congressmen are subject to STATE laws when in the State.

However, in regards to the Federal Government, the Federal Government supersedes State Governments.  State Governments cannot tell the Federal Government how to act, and thus a Governor cannot tell his Senators how to perform their Federal duties, and he and the state MUST follow the Federal dictates and Laws that are established by these Congressmen in the acts of Congress.  (like High Priests).

Not a perfect example...but perhaps it helps to show that two offices can be held side by side and somewhat how a Father is always the head of the family, but also MUST follow his church leaders and their directions if he is to be considered a worthy and righteous Father of his family.

All this just to say @Carborendum that in your family, if the Father was present, then it does not matter what priesthood office others may hold, while within his own family, the Father presides.  However, this does not mean the Father can toss out the priesthood authority of those who are over him in the church, but must preside in righteousness in his family by following those who are directing the church...

Adding:  In the end though, or in Heaven, I think it is that the governing Priesthood is NOT being a High Priest, though there will be High Priests...but those that are part of the Patriarchal Order.  There will be those who have been ordained to be High Priests and maybe even Kings...but those who are part of the Patriarchal Order and hence this Patriarchal Priesthood will be held in the Higher degree, or that of Exaltation.  It is under THIS order that Our Father rules over his children and presides over us in spirit and on the Earth.  Hence, as it states above, he who would seek to obtain the Highest degree of the celestial Kingdom MUST obtain this Patriarchal Priesthood.

Hopefully I didn't confuse people more...sometimes my wording is not as well as I would wish...and so I probably over compensate by trying to explain the same idea over and over again in overly long posts.

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[person0]

I presume that there will be a great deal fewer individuals ordained to the office of High Priest going forward.  There will now be no need for said ordination outside of a leadership calling.  Really this makes a lot of sense, and I find myself wondering why anyone was ever ordained a High Priest without a leadership calling in the first place.

D&C does clearly indicate that there is supposed to be a quorum of High Priests, and that the president of the High Priests Quorum is the stake president.  Don Carlos Smith was the first Stake President and with that was also the first High Priest Quorum President.

I find it interesting that during General Conference, the brethren indicated that they diligently searched the scriptures in relation to this decision.  Based on my brief studies, the changes that have been made actually appear to be more in line with the applicable passages in the D&C than the previous format.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of interest, there is a third Priesthood which is actually part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood. 

I don't consider it a "third priesthood".  But regardless. We were aware of it. That's why we were even discussing it.  It was a sacrament meeting.  But it was a family gathering.  So, which is it?  A church function would be the senior high priest.  A family function would be the patriarch of the family.  We figured it out at the time and we were fine.

[person0]

Totally random, yet applicable, thought:  It would be interesting if the maximum size of a High Priests Quorum was never given because the maximum quorum size is 144,000.    Food for thought.

Edited April 3, 2018 by person0

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't consider it a "third priesthood".  But regardless. We were aware of it. That's why we were even discussing it.  It was a sacrament meeting.  But it was a family gathering.  So, which is it?  A church function would be the senior high priest.  A family function would be the patriarch of the family.  We figured it out at the time and we were fine.

That complicates things.  Today it is a little clearer.  My OPINION...The Bishop is to preside over the ordinances of their ward in regards to the Aaronic priesthood.  Sacrament is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance.  As such, the only ones there that could preside over that ordinance in an official manner would be the Bishops...UNLESS...they had asked the Local Bishop (or if the Father was part of a ward and asked his Bishop for permission to do this under the auspices of that ward) to be able to perform the ordinance of the Sacrament.  In the Former, a Bishop would preside, in the latter, if there was Permission (and normally it is not given in the US these days), the Father would preside.

This has been interpreted by various people in different ways over the years, and some wards and Bishops interpreted it VERY differently even 20 years ago...so depending on how long ago, my opinion on how it is normally done currently may be a moot point.

There are exceptions...for example, with military personnel, sometimes we set them apart so that they are able to bless their own sacrament when deployed to remote locations where no ward or branch is available.

 

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

I find myself wondering why anyone was ever ordained a High Priest without a leadership calling in the first place.

Because the EQ was tired of them.  It's unfortunate that the FP finally noticed the loophole, and now they won't be quarantined anymore.

[person0]

Another interesting thought. . .  I just did some rough math and it appears that the total number of individuals who would constitute the newly defined Stake High Priest Quorums throughout the world would be around 144,000.

[Fether]

A friend and I would joke around about there being some deep truth only held by high priests. A similar experience to one’s first time receiving temple endowments would occur upon one’s becoming a high priest. Hence the separation of classes, high priests would discuss these deep truths while Elders would not x)

[NeedleinA]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My father-in-law (Lehi)

Bummer he isn't here any longer, I hope he is doing good though.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, person0 said:

Totally random, yet applicable, thought:  It would be interesting if the maximum size of a High Priests Quorum was never given because the maximum quorum size is 144,000.    Food for thought.

The maximum size is supposed to be 192.

12 Deacons
24 Teachers
48 Priests
96 Elders
192 High Priests

It doubles with each quorum.

70s were, well, 70.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

A friend and I would joke around about there being some deep truth only held by high priests. A similar experience to one’s first time receiving temple endowments would occur upon one’s becoming a high priest. Hence the separation of classes, high priests would discuss these deep truths while Elders would not x)

Both offices share the quality of having equal parts ignorance and wisdom.

[person0]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The maximum size is supposed to be 192.

12 Deacons
24 Teachers
48 Priests
96 Elders
192 High Priests

It doubles with each quorum.

70s were, well, 70.

I was just joking, however, I don't think there is an actual defined max with the HP.  Consider the number of HP in the Quorum up until the most recent changes, I would venture to bet that there were a couple of stakes with more than 192 HP, especially in Utah and Idaho areas.  My ward alone had like 32 and there are 6 wards in my Stake, that is already 192 if each had 32, I bet other Stakes would have had even more!

Side note:  I just learned that if there are more than 48 priests, the bishop serves as Quorum President for both Priests Quorums, with assistants in each.  Now that I think of it, not sure why I hadn't considered that before.

Edited April 3, 2018 by person0

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

I was just joking, however, I don't think there is an actual defined max with the HP.  Consider the number of HP in the Quorum up until the most recent changes, I would venture to bet that there were a couple of stakes with more than 192 HP, especially in Utah and Idaho areas.  My ward alone had like 32 and there are 6 wards in my Stake, that is already 192 if each had 32, I bet other Stakes would have had even more!

Side note:  I just learned that if there are more than 48 priests, the bishop serves as Quorum President for both Priests Quorums, with assistants in each.  Now that I think of it, not sure why I hadn't considered that before.

There is always some leeway with the actual number depending on circumstances.  Our ward has between 10 to 14 deacons depending on what month we're talking about.  But the bishop has decided that he will keep it at one quorum because of the fluidity of the number.  We have 14 deacons for one month, then it's down to 11 the next month.  It is impractical to organize a new quorum presidency in such a situation.

Likewise the Stake President has leeway if the number is "a little" above the 192.   And either the stake gets split if the number goes too far above that number, or the SP has the option of splitting into two quorums. And he will be the president of each quorum, just as the bishop is the president of two priest quorums.

But now, there is no danger of that happening with the HP quorum.  And it may very well be that we will have two MP quorums in the ward anyway.