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.
Given that Relief Society is done differently, I have often wondered a few things:
- 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?
- 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 some legitimate reason the Elders and High Priests can’t meet together weekly?
- Why aren’t the quorums just combined when the group sizes are extremely lopsided? In our ward, there are only a handful of active Elders, but even so, the HP group does not want to combine with them for Sunday meetings. Is this how it happens in most wards?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Whisky I was a relatively young BP (three months shy of my 31st year), I served mainly in districts where there are far few ordained HP’s. Only upon returning to a large city was I ordained to the office of HP. In retrospect this was done to allow me to serve shortly after as the HPGL – after spending 9 months on the High Council.
I’m our ward we would often combine the two when Elders numbers were low. Logistically it worked well. Whenever we had HP business, Elders would refrain from voting or participating. Then we would just have the lesson. It was fine.
For the run of the mill Elder and HP, there is little difference in their roles.
Also, I should have indicated that these groups and quorums were subject to greater demarcation the older you go back in the history of the church. History wizzers like @mormonheretic might shed a more expert light on this line of thinking than I am able to do.
Forced hierarchy isn’t necessary, but recharacterized as a separation, it can have healthy results — without it I wouldn’t have a “sanctuary quorum” to attend when the sometimes alternating boredom and irritation of the HP group gets to be too much to handle. Of course, I did get the RS President to offer me sanctuary in the RS meeting. But I don’t have much confidence in a positive reaction of some of the sisters if I took her up on it. Besides, it could embarrass my wife. In this wheezing geezer the separate “quorum” meetings bring out envy of the vitality of the elders quorum, but then I’m not one of those interested in climbing any ecclesiastical (or other hierarchical) ladder or basking in the presence of those who are. Please don’t combine always or too hastily, though I guess I could join the third-hour hall class, as well as the second, when seeking sanctuary!
Question: Would combining kill the vitality of elders quorum meetings by motivating too many younger men to keep quiet in the presence of aged “wisdom”?
Hypothesis: The relative vitality, boredom, and irritation of different quorums varies widely enough across the Church that no generalization about men, elders, or high priests or their meetings is going to hold up well to specific examples.
I was in a branch for a few years here in the states and they did combine the HP/EQ and it worked good. In fact they kept it even after the SP said it was time to separate. It wasn’t disbanded until we grew into a ward.
I have been told that the rule for “move someone to HP just due age” has changed a few times. I was ordained a HP based on age and the quorum sizes in my ward. I was told about 6 months later by a high councilman that “that policy has changed and you might have been asked to attend HP, but not be ordained a HP – so you got in under the wire!” Then a year later my brother was ordained a HP without any specific calling.
Our HP group has never had any social event that I can remember. The EQ is fairly good about having many on-going and special events that are well attended.
But to Hawk’s questions. I have seen one guy actually push for his own ordination to HP and got it (I think he saw it as a mark of his spirituality). He then started telling others, “Hey – I can put in a good word to get you bumped up to HP if you want. I have a bit of pull in this area.” 🙂
It is rather “lopsided” in my ward, but nobody seems to care. The HP have their meeting where about 50% fall asleep and from what I can tell the EQ doesn’t even think about this issue.
There certainly are some benefits to the RS configuration, but I would assume it is hardest on those just joining RS in a family ward. It felt really odd when I started attending with the Elders and many of them were only 10 years my senior.
I think the main reasons they are separated is to offer more leadership opportunities and to spread out the leadership responsibilities a bit. Not many young guys would get leadership opportunities if they combined the two.
I think it is important to remember that youth weren’t originally eligible for priesthood. All the quorums were adults until the turn of the 20th century when boys suddenly started getting ordained in order to get them to stay active in the church. So in the first 80-90 years, all quorums were considered adult men and were split 6 ways (because the office of Seventy existed in stakes until Pres Kimball did away with them and reconstituted the First Quorum of Seventy.) My dad served as a Seventy at the time stake Seventies were disbanded, and was immediately ordained a high priest. (I remember when that happened, and I believe I’m about the same age at Hawkgrrrl.) So the adult men were originally split into 6 groups: deacons, teachers, priests, elders, seventies, high priests. When you read section 20 of the D&C, the duties of deacons, teachers, and priests sound like adult callings because they were adult callings, “to watch over the church”, “to take the lead of meetings when no other {higher office} was present”, etc.
Now there were some exceptions, and often a person was considered adult much younger. If memory serves, Joseph F. or Fielding Smith (I believe it was F; I get them mixed up), served a mission to the Sandwich Islands (now Hawaii) at age 15. It was very difficult for him due to his young age, lack of knowing the language, and much more primitive state of Hawaii in the last 19th century.
My dad never held a calling which would move him up to HP. It always troubled him. He was finally moved up, well into his 50’s, and I’ve never seen him so happy at church. He was always deeply spiritual and loved the gospel and serving at church, so I could tell it hurt- he felt forgotten at best, rejected at worse.
Personally, I think this ‘leveling up’ goes against the heart of the gospel and causes unnecessary pain.
My hubby and I had this discussion about a week ago. I can’t see the purpose in two priesthood groups, other than to create more opportunities for busy-work type leadership positions. It will be interesting to see if this changes over time.
The biggest problem I see with combining them is space. in my branch days the two met together because there were so few, but in any ward I’ve been in all the quorums cramped into a small space for opening exercises then dispersed into smaller rooms. The RS has a big room that can hold the lot almost all the time.
The only reason we fell into age groups in the first place is because people started seeing them as rewards and a way to get ahead in the hierarchy, rather than callings to complement each other.
I’ve no problem staying an Elder forever, smiling at the young ‘uns playing games like “what were you doing 5 years ago” and thinking how little has changed for me in such a short timeframe.
Interesting thoughts (as always), but one FYI to correct something…”you are either in Elder’s Quorum or High Priests, depending on the highest office in the Priesthood bestowed.”
In every ward/stake (all over the U.S. but not in Utah) I have attended, there are always several older men in the HP group who are not ordained HP. They just fit better with their own age group. Sometimes they are eventually ordained to that office without having been called to a position that requires being a HP.
Oops. I spoke too soon, before reading all the post. You mention this later. Mea culpa ;-(
Nice post, as always. I wish the groups were combined. I appreciate the various perspectives such a diverse group brings. Heck, I wish there wasn’t any separation between Priesthood/Relief Society. I’d prefer that they be one meeting more frequently than they are. Combined meetings are the best.
I’m 59 years old and am still technically an Elder. I kinda/sorta forced my way into the HP Group about 6 years ago because I grew weary of talking about children, marital dating etc. I do feel more comfortable with men my own age – and ironically I’ve found it to be a MUCH more relaxed atmoshpere; perhaps as a result of having much more life experience and a willingness to not take things so seriously. For whatever it’s worth – this division of the “priesthoods” really does bug me – but as I go on I care, less and less.
I appreciate MH providing historical context. I think it would be extra strange if there were six quorums the men were divided up into, while the women were all in one group. I think what might be better is an infinite number of potential rankings that men can be put into so that the Holy Eternal Hierarchy can be forever motivating us to work harder to level up yet again.
No, seriously, I think this is all silly, and I wonder if the move to give young men the Aaronic Priesthood, and then later the dropping of the Seventies at the local level might be seen as part of a long-term trend that ends with men having just one quorum.
My husband currently serves on the high council and has responsibility for a branch in the stake. One of the main tasks he was given was to support the formation of a functioning EQ. Elders and HPs had been meeting together. He is responsible for training and supporting the EQP particularly.
From this I would conclude, a) that the quorums are unlikely to combine any time soon, since the effort seems to be geared towards keeping them separate, and b) that it likely has a good deal to do with leadership training / nurturing potential leaders – I guess that puts me with Tim.
I don’t know about “forced hierarchy”, but when I was in my 20s and 30s, I was grateful for EQ. I felt like I related to them and their perspectives better than I did the geezers. Now, I’m a geezer, and I don’t relate to the elders as well — I prefer the older age group (and they are older — the younger HP seem to end up working with the YM). The smaller groups make for more invested discussions. Honestly, I’m surprised the RS doesn’t split into older/younger groups, say, half the time.
I found it very emotionally disturbing to have to go to the high priests group after being released from the bishopric. Surrounded by men in scooters talking loud because they were hard of hearing. When I got called to be a HPGL I felt like I had been stripped of my youthful identity. Our ward/stake, however, doesn’t move men to HP just based on age, so you have men in their 80s in EQ too, though you also have younger men there. I’m happy to be serving in YM right now, so I don’t have to go to the HP group.
It should be noted that the Community of Christ and other groups don’t follow the hierarchy model as much as LDS. If my understanding is correct, there can be movement back to a priesthood office. If a person is called to a teaching calling, the are called to the office of Teacher. (Gee, that actually makes sense, rather than Teachers who don’t teach.
In my interview with Jim Vun Cannon, he wondered why we ordained youth. They don’t do that in the Remnant Church. In the next week or so, I’ll talk to Greg Prince about why LDS ordain youth. RLDS traditions certainly don’t do that and continue with “advancement” policies of the Joseph Smith era.
Good post. I wrote about my experience with this here: https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/25/movin-on-up/
I was ordained a high priest without a calling. It was kind of funny how it happened. I had been serving in Webelos for 3 years. I tried hard, but (1) don’t like scouts, and (2) had an especially rowdy bunch of boys. I went to the bishop and told, him I was tired of my calling, I was yelling at the boys too much, they didn’t like it, I didn’t like it, and I felt like I was tired of the calling. While I was in there, I noted that I was sick of poorly prepared lessons in Priesthood meeting too.
So the bishop released me from scouts, put me in a family history calling (that I love), asked me to become a temple worker, and said he would move me to the high priests group. I don’t know if that will work for everyone, and I wasn’t expecting to “move up” to HP, but that’s what happened to me. I’ve been in 3 HP groups since then. As a general rule, I have found HP lessons are better prepared than EQ, but perhaps it was just a change of scenery at the time that made my attitude a little better. (I know another person that was moved into HP without a calling that required a move.)
When I was HPGL, I would have loved to pair up elders and high priests as home teaching companions. Almost all the men in my group were stellar home teachers and did so much good. Most of the elders… weren’t like that, and could have used someone to help them catch the bug, as it were.
There’s no rule against doing this. Heck, even married couples can be home teaching companions. It’s just administratively difficult to pull off, requiring coordination between two presidencies. Our poor EQP was already overworked, so after discussing it for a bit, we dropped it.
In general, with the current setup, I think the elders miss out on wisdom, and the high priests miss out on youthful energy.
MH says: because the office of Seventy existed in stakes until Pres Kimball did away with them and reconstituted the First Quorum of Seventy
I don’t know when the 1st Q 70 came along, but President Benson got rid of stake 70s. I was around for this, and I was baptized a couple of months after SWK’s death. They were stake missionaries, and the local mission program devolved to the ward mission level. Local Seventies were either bumped to HP or advised to meet with the EQ. We still have a couple of men holding the office of Seventy in my ward, who are being preserved as historical monuments.
I’d just as soon avoid ever being a high priest. I’m 52; I’ve only recently begun to feel a little bit Elder-ly (usually the morning after a physically strenuous day). They don’t need me. I usually get enough sleep in Sacrament meeting.
Levity aside, I know that some men see “advancement” in the MPH as a status thing that’s their due as they age, like advancement in the APH is for the young men. I don’t know how widespread that is outside of the BoM Belt, however; I’ve never noticed it as a factor in my 30+ years in Minnesota. I think we could meet together with little or no harm done. I would enjoy that; I teach the EQ once a month and having five people in those lessons is kind of demotivating. The only real difference in responsibilities I can think of is that the HPs are assumed to be too superannuated to be interested in sex anymore, so they home teach the single sisters.
Great discussion. This is something that has been on my mind lately. In my very moridor ward, we have asked some of the Elders that are over 55 or so to attend our HP quorum. However, even at that, they seem somewhat embarrassed to enter discussions, and they aren’t ever asked to substitute teach. I know that they are glad to be with men more of their age, but they feel somewhat “less-than” the rest of the group (I know because I have spoken to a couple privately about this very topic). HP seems to be the top of the foodchain in the church, where you kind of prove your value and contribution to the church since you were in a top leadership position at one time. I believe that there really is a “hierarchy” found in the priesthood, and like it or not, people can and do make judgments about the righteousness or goodness of life based on your rank, and I might add, calling. In our ward we have former Stake Presidents, SP counselors, mission presidents, Bishops, etc. in our HP group, and I’m kind of intimidated since I have only been a counselor. I think that some of the Elders may get a little discouraged, as the last 3 Bishops and at least 1 of the counselors were already HP. Doesn’t leave much room for Elders to “move up”.
In one private conversation with one of the older Elders, he was saying that he feels that his wife is kind of looking askance at him since he is over 50 and still going to EQ, like she is wondering about his worthiness or whatever. I know that I definitely felt that way as I neared 50 and hadn’t been called into a bishopric or whatever where I would get to be with the men more of my age.
We combine with the Elders occasionally, especially when the EQP embarrassingly admits that their instructor is not there. No big deal to have them together. I enjoy hearing more viewpoints that the normally black and white, by the book, super-faithful answers to all the questions from the HPG. To me, there isn’t a great reason both quorums couldn’t be combined since they teach out of the same manual. Just different assignments during the month for cleaning, temple assignments, welfare assignments, etc. that can be gone over.
I checked out Kevin’s linked post from 2009 (see his comment above), and I particularly liked a comment made by Ardis: “A man who is willing to accept those obligations but is never called to them, and who continues to faithfully meet with much younger men and participate in their activities and programs, is an impressive model of humility, I think. I’m a lot more impressed by an old man among the elders than a young man among the high priests.”
In a previous ward I was in, they actually divided RS into two age groups for two Sundays a month. They would have opening exercises/announcements together, and then split up for the lesson, which was simply a matter of closing an accordion divider and knowing which side to be on. There was no hard age cutoff, but the division put the elderly/empty nesters/boomers in one group and young mothers/working women in the other, and it was entirely self-selected. Our ward was mostly “newlywed or nearly dead” anyway, so the generational divide was always apparent in talks, lessons, comments, etc. But this split RS class configuration seemed to work quite well, or so my wife told me. There were a few complaints, though; mostly from some of the older ladies who wanted to be in the “younger” class instead.
I think making the relief society into two or more groups based on age or interests or whatever would help many people like me who are introverted and slightly phobic of big groups. Ever since I graduated from YW, I have had sac meeting=huge group, SS=huge group, and RS=huge group. All I do at church is spend three hours cowering in the corner, and I hate it. When I can get away with it, I meet with the gospel essentials SS class because it is a small class of new members and investigators and never more than about 10 people. I find that I am SO much more comfortable in the smaller group, that I am a whole different person. I participate and don’t get physically sick if asked to say a prayer. I would enjoy RS if it was split in half or thirds. Why do adults have to be lumped into classes of 60 or so, when some of us simply cannot handle the big group. I envy my husband’s class of 20.
MH makes a valid point. Having Deacon and Teacher quorum presidencies are doing a disservice to the boys at this point. Our ward has not had over 2 active boys in either of these two quorums for the last 5 years. Every time we set apart the new presidency, the Bishop has to tell them they they are one of the few people in the ward who have priesthood keys and they have the right to receive revelation for their quorum. I think we are setting them on the road to an apathetic approach from a young age because we are setting them up to fail. What 12 year old receives revelation for his quorum? How are they any different than a beehive class president who holds no keys? I fear we are trivializing the whole thing at this point. Maybe it functions better in wards with more youth. The videos the church puts out makes it appear at least one ward in Utah is doing it right.
Angela, this is a great post. The church is set up so that there is always someone who has reached a different level than you. You can’t quite get into the next club. The second anointing is the club most members will never get to. I kind of like that women don’t have this pressure of climbing up the ranks. There are drawbacks to having the older women together with the younger women. Not only are they at different stages in their lives, they also have different ideas on a number of issues. There was a lesson on modesty in our ward a month ago and there were some hard feelings afterwards. One of the older ladies was going on about how women are the protectors of virtue and it is there job to help keep young men’s thoughts pure by not showing too much skin. One of the younger sisters said that when men in church wear nice tailored three piece suits, it really turns her on so she asked all the ladies to please not have their husbands wear suits that might cause her to have immodest thoughts. Several of the older sisters were upset by the things the younger sisters were saying. Maybe RS would better serve the sister if it were split up too.
Glory, we speak so poorly of the old.
I enjoy the social aspects of a good group.
Zach, my son was just made Teacher’s Quorum president–4 active boys in the quorum. Our bishop talks the same way yours does. The one thing I will say is that one boy has super, active parents. He is adopted and apparently has Aspergers or something like that. His parents have found that forcing him to sit through church is too much to bear and so the boy is inactive, even though his parents aren’t. He does come to sacrament meeting occasionally, but that 1 hour is pretty unbearable for him and the parents, and they just take him home.
My son happens to be pretty good friends with the inactive boy, and the YM leaders do their most to keep the friend somewhat involved in the ward, even if he doesn’t come. The boy often comes over to play with my son. He came over to our house one Tues night, looking for my son. I told him my son was at a neighbor’s house for one of those worldwide broadcasts, and I said, “You should go.” To my shock, he showed up. My ward in particular does try to work with inactives, though it often seems futile, and leaders try to help the boys learn leadership. However, it is mixed results. The president my son just replaced only comes to church because his parents force him to. He also doesn’t get along with the Aspergers boy, so it is hard to say, “I don’t like you, but come to church.” Obviously that didn’t go over very well. Just like adults, some kids embrace callings better than others. The previous president was pretty worthless, despite YM leader help.
I live in Utah County. I’ve often complained that our wards were so large that it is easy to get lost. We nearly fill the gym every week, but some quorums are still really small. Priests have 2-3 active, Teachers about 4 active, deacons we have about 8. (For some reason, we have like 14 Beehives, and MiaMaids are about 10 I think. I believe Laurels are about half dozen.) Normal size wards have a hard time filling presidencies for the quorums and YW groups, so I get it. Some wards in our stake are busting at the seams, but we have no buildings to put them in. One ward in our building asked to keep 1 pm church because they are splitting the primary into 3 groups! They won’t fit in another time slot apparently. We have a building under construction nearby, and I know they are waiting until it is finished to split that ward.
We used to partition off part of the gym for opening exercises on priesthood meeting. The other ward asked to use the entire gym. The HP room is now for opening exercises, but it won’t fit everyone for announcements. We couldn’t meet together even if elders/HP cowere combined. HP crowd into the other ward’s bishop’s office since they take the entire gym), Elders meet in HP room, Priests meet in our bishop’s office. I know our RS meets in the largest room, it would be impossible for all the Melchizedek priesthood to meet at the same time in the same room unless we met outside. We’re just too big.
(I know this sounds weird, but it is pretty typical in fast growing parts of Utah. I heard that Orem was contracting and has extra building space. I’ve been told if we wanted to split wards to be more manageable in size, the wards could go to Orem, but who wants to travel 20 minutes to go to church when you have 3 churches within walking distance! It’s kind of crazy.)
Angela, that’s a fantastic comment by Ardis. Thanks for sharing it.
I was fifty years old and still an elder. Then I was called into the high priest group leadership and they had to make me a high priest. My bishop spoke to me like it was some kind of promotion. I think the primary reason for the calling was to make me a high priest. Our ward has done this a few times…called an elder into the high priest group leadership because they are getting embarrassingly old to be in elders. Meh. I’d rather be in Primary.
Sorry Grandma of the Rockies. I am afraid you were referring to me. I did not mean to offend. I was stuck on a plane for 11 hours last week and listened to the April and October general conferences of 1971. Mark Petersen, Joseph Fielding Smith, Delbert Stapely, Eldon Tanner, Hugh B Brown, Legrand Richards, Paul Dunn. The tone of the conference talks and the messages have changed a lot. Native Americans were referred to as Lamanites a number of times. The men seemed obsessed with sex, drugs, rock and roll and oddly enough seemed very focused on other churches and how lacking they were. There were no women speakers. It is nothing like I have experienced listening to conference in my lifetime. I am just saying that the two generations have had a different experience with the gospel. That dynamic can have its positives and negatives. I tend to focus on the negatives too much, so again I am sorry. I don’t mean to stereotype that all people above a certain age all think alike either.
MH – That is great that your ward has so much participation. My son was just made a deacon and that automatically made him first counselor because he doubled the size of the quorum. I can’t imagine how wards functioned in the 1800’s when there were enough men to fill all the different quorums. Were they automatically advanced at a certain age? Did they have the same ladder to climb that people have been talking about in these comments? Poor Heber just turned 70 but is still a deacon. That must have been embarrassing.
“Were they automatically advanced at a certain age? Did they have the same ladder to climb that people have been talking about in these comments?”
Not in the early days. After Joseph died, it seems Brigham did a lot of advancing, but it wasn’t based on age.. Remember the Kirtland Temple had Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood podiums at each end of the gathering place on both the 1st and 2nd floors. Can you imagine boys in those seats?
The RLDS/CoC just call you to a position. It isn’t seen as advancement like the LDS Church. It’s more of a calling.
On the other hand, they had the Law of Adoption, which seems a little MLM. John D. Lee was trying to get all these people sealed to him because it gave him more glory. Dr. Richard Bennett discusses that:
Someone may have mentioned it, but the creation of the office of high priest was one of the main concerns David Whitmer had with the church and was part of his reason for leaving. See An Address to all Believers in Christ, pg. 35. He believed the separation caused conflict between the brethren.
” I can’t imagine how wards functioned in the 1800’s when there were enough men to fill all the different quorums”
They had wards of 1000+ people. Bishop now is hard enough; imagine trying to Bishop back then.
MH, If I understand correctly you have a ward that fills the chapel and cultural hall, but has only 20 ish ym and 30 yw. I wonder if leadership have projected the potential ward membership when these young people are the adult members of the ward. We are told only 20% of youth are active, perhaps less in your ward.
In 50 years will we have 5m active or struggling to get 4m?
Other churches who are more progressive (would have girls passing sac, and conducting the ) are often presented as loosing members, so lets not change like them. Are we doing any better with our conservative approach?
Something has gone wrong, we used to claim exponential growth, and talk of filling the whole earth. We have just had boundary changes where 4 wards were changed to 3.
Thanks Zach, but it’s in the original post and several comments throughout. Wait till you’re all there and you’re sleepy, wheezy, geezy, nearly dead, asthmatic, and your opinions are outdated, foolish, too this, too that, having little value let alone wisdom because you’re, well, a fossil. Not that anyone means any offense by these mean, offensive terms. Cause hey, you’re old. And old is awful.
American culture worships youth to the point of idolatry. The old are mostly annoying cast offs. I live it every day so regrettably, I know. And some day it will be you all in these horrible shoes you never asked for but are forced to wear. I wish you kinder and more thoughtful young folks when it’s your turn. But don’t get your aging hopes up (gleeful cackle here). I have a powerful, wicked tonic that works wonders—I’ll bequeath it to you! Ahh glory, glory…..
Well, if it’s any consolation, I’m beginning to wheeze and fossilize. Beats the alternative.
I sometimes wish RS could have 2 groups. I thought the discussions in HP would be more intense or deeper knowing that the group was all endowed members. In RS there can be investigators, new members, old members, endowed or not. The nature of the diversity results in a general discussion that doesn’t go deep. Are all HP endowed? Do the HP discussions go places that the wouldn’t go in EQ because of the nature of the membership?
I thought the purpose of the separation was to allow for this but I might not be seeing it accurately. Just wondering. I really enjoy deep spiritual discussions of doctrine.
Funny, the separation is done away with after general conference of April 2018 … You felt it coming, I guess …