Whether you are 18 or 88, married, single, widowed, or divorced, with or without kids, and regardless of your socio-economic status, if you are an active LDS woman, you are in Relief Society. Not so for the men.
I will freely acknowledge that being a woman in the church and bringing up a question about Priesthood practices would probably subject me to some derisive comment from BY types about how it’s as unseemly as a dog walking on its hind legs or some such thing. I admit up front that I am not an expert in these matters, but I have been a member of the church for my whole life, and have attended many different wards across the US and some outside the US.
If you are a man in the church, you are either in Elder’s Quorum or High Priests, depending on the highest office in the Priesthood bestowed. The lessons taught are the same (the manual is also shared by the Relief Society). If you are in the Elders’ Quorum, you are more likely to be asked to help people move, to participate in ward basketball, and to administer blessings to the sick. If you are in the High Priests’ Group, there are social activities for the men and their wives. Uhm, which group sounds better to you? Basketball + moving people or dinner parties with wheezing fossils (no offense to the wheezing fossils out there)?
Officially, an active LDS man remains an Elder until he is in a calling (such as a bishop or stake leadership calling) that requires him to become a High Priest. However, there are a few exceptions (that I’ve seen in various wards) that can result in someone being moved from the Elder’s Quorum into the High Priest’s Group without having been in a “High Priest” required calling:
- Age. If a man in good standing is over the age of 50 (or lower for some wards), he may be either 1) invited to attend HPG based on age, despite priesthood level, or 2) ordained to the office of a High Priest to move him into the older group officially.
- This seems a little arbitrary and could lead to hurt feelings or feeling disenfranchized for men who are older but haven’t been ordained as High Priests.
- **In some wards, a very young HP will unofficially join the EQ based on age.
- Organization. If a ward has too few High Priests to fill all the roles associated with the High Priests’ Group, additional Elders may be ordained to fill these roles.
- If a ward is too small or has too few to fill one of the two quorums, why not just collapse into one Priesthood Quorum? This feels like ordaining people to justify unnecessary callings. Aren’t there any programs to hand out or Primary classes to substitute for? Is this problematic because the HPG is actually led by the Stake President but the Elder’s Quorum has a ward level leader?
- Discretionary Ordinations. It is not required for some callings, like Executive Secretary, to be ordained High Priests, but local leadership may (at their discretion) decide to ordain someone to the office of High Priest in this or similar roles.
- Not a big deal I suppose, but it seems pretty arbitrary. At least it is restricted to a handful of borderline justifiable positions and is less likely to create bad feelings as a result.
Why is this forced hierarchy necessary? Doesn’t it bring out the worst in people (envy, pride, competition, and favoritism) where charity should rule the day? Is it necessary? Relief Society has been egalitarian (all ages) for a very long time. While there have been issues in the past, it does seem to be getting better due to a few changes. The manuals are more doctrinal now, less “family focused”; they are more applicable regardless of life situation, age, marital status, etc. So, do men NEED to feel that they have a goal (aging up into a different class) in order to feel that they are engaged and participating in the church? Is there a legitimate reason the Elders and High Priests can’t meet together weekly? Is this some secret male testosterone-driven thing I just don’t get? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
The LDS Church is based on hierarchy (primarily the role of the male). Rank/priesthood determines something as simple as where you sit on a stand.
Rank is formalized in complex documents: In ward meetings such as priesthood meeting, Sunday School, and sacrament meeting, the bishop is the presidng officer. In the bishop’s absence his first counselor presides. If they are both absent, the second counselor presides. If a General Authority or a member of the stake presidency visits a meeting, the member of the bishopric conducts under the direction of the visiting higher authority. A high councilor, visiting a ward as an official representative from the stake presidency, does not take over the presiding authority of the bishop.
“The sacrament should be given first to the highest Church authority who sits on the stand and then passed to all others in an orderly way. A high councilor visiting a ward as an official representative of the stake presidency and sitting on the stand should be recognized by receiving the sacrament first, unless a General Authority or a member of the stake presidency is present on the stand. It is not necessary to recognize a high councilor while attending his own ward in an unofficial capacity, although there is no objection to such courtesy being extended to him.”
Even among the Quorum of the 12, rank determines who enters a room first or who gets first pick from a box of chocolates. So, saying that there are people in the LDS Church who are focused on rank is an understatement, as it is built into the entire hierarchy on a formal basis.
That being said, there are a number of people who really and truly don’t care about these things. They just don’t tend to make it as far “up” the hierarchy as those who do.
“The LDS Church is based on hierarchy (primarily the role of the male).” And yet mysteriously God is no respecter of persons.
“That being said, there are a number of people who really and truly don’t care about these things. They just don’t tend to make it as far “up” the hierarchy as those who do.” Because while God is no respecter of persons, people are respecters of persons. Got it.
I always thought God was “an”-“archy” — I think we should stop trying to assign Gentile hierarchies to Him. Maybe I just have an alternate view of keys.
Jesus said that His church should not be based on hierarchy:
But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. [There exist various “archies” among the Gentiles — you know, those organizational pyramids we all could draw so well]
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be agreat among you, shall be your minister: [Saints should not have “archies” — or in other words, we should have anarchy.]