Similarly, the ward is an Aaronic Priesthood organization, and the bishop is president of the priests quorum, and he calls teachers and deacons quorum presidents from among those quorums.

The theoretical model is really pretty — Melchizedek Priesthood is organized and functions at the stake level and the stake president is president of the high priests quorum — Aaronic Priesthood is organized and functions at the ward level and the bishop is president of the priests quorum.

But just as some stake presidents, under the press of other duties, are not able to magnify their assignments in leading the work of the Melchizedek Priesthood in general and their high priests quorums in particular, some bishops, under a similar press, are unable to magnify their assignments in leading the Aaronic Priesthood in general and their priests quorum in particular.

To some extent, the importance of and focus on priesthood in leading the church at the local level has been diminished over time. A return to these principles might obviate the premise of the original posting and reinvigorate the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood quorums at the local level. You see, priesthood groups at the local level are largely social groupings — the priesthood quorums do not carry the weight of accomplishing the mission of the church — the priesthood quorums are instead only responsible for teaching lessons to occupy the time and organizing service projects from time to time.

Well, Rich, you know one of my Stake Presidents used to love to tell this story. He’d say, “When a man has been a Bishop for a few years, he gets tired. They all tell me the same thing. They say, ‘President, I love the people, I love being a Bishop, but I’m just worn out. I need a rest.’ So I say, ‘What calling would you like if I release you?’ And they always say, ‘I’d like to be on the High Council.’”

For the most part, most of the HP have spent years in Bishoprics or High Councils doing most of the work in a ward or stake. In addition, HP do the lion share of home teaching, most of the temple assignments, Most of the welfare and DI assignments and the vast majority of family history work.

It is true that the elders get to be the ward moving service and get to race their pinewood derby cars at the Elders Quorum pinewood derby race but 90 percent of the time, if you want something done from one of the psthd quorums, the HP Quorum is where the work is done.

Whether pride causes enmity with God or enmity with God causes pride, I’m not sure!. IMO the definition of Pride is to have a high opinion of ones self / own creation. there are many symptoms of pride obsession, envy, vanity etc, I agree that unchecked pride is the root of all evil however pride may produce many good things too, ie “pride in ones work”.

the issues that I have is not your desire to help others, but your insistence that a leadership position is necessary to enable you to enact that assistance, HT, VT & callings give sufficient opportunity to help others if you are desiring further reaching authority then your desires are no longer to help individuals. jmb275 please understand it is not my intention to pick a fight, I’m mealy defending my general opinion of aspiration.

Hawkgrrrl #40 I appreciate my examples were not sufficient to support my argument, however I was just being a little light hearted.

I’ve been in a ward, branch and a mission branch, where the HP do not have their own group meetings within the ward — except some times when they need to accomplish something as a group, and they need to have their own meeting to plan and organize that.

I think age-based segregation is wrong. Elderly men should have younger men to remind them that the world moves on, whether they move with it or not; the younger men need to learn the wisdom of experience. You get the bickering about doctrinal nuances, because elderly men tend to be so fixated on some obscure point that has become to them a “gospel hobby” and they think they know absolutely everything about it. To fix the latter, see the first part of the second sentence.

I have the “Blue Book”, and I have read it, too. My calling requires that I know it, and I’m a bit of a perfectionist. From the handbook, I find absolutely no basis for having two MP groups meet, unless there are too many active male adults to have them meet as one group. I mean as a “normal” meetings routine; if there’s a special reason, then there is that to consider. I suspect often the segregation happens because that’s how it’s always been done.

Often the problems that people have with what happens in reality are not based on “faulty” Church policy, but simply the fact that people quite often are oblivious to what the handbook teaches. Then there’s inspiration, which actually does happen; perhaps not as often as it should, but it still does.

jmb275 #34 I don’t necessarily believe that pride = malicious or pride = bad, I would still defend my blanket statement, there are exceptions of course however I do not see your experience (as you explained it) being one of those. Pride is a natural course of human existence it is how pride is managed that is a key issue, your comments have given me good cause to think.

generally no matter the structure of the organisation, it is human nature to be prideful (both men & women) although we demonstrate it in differing ways, (some women perhaps wait for weddings to wear the “prettiest” hat’s or put on the most “spiritual” voice), Men are less subtle.

Hmmm, maybe you need to expound some more because I’m not following. We’re going off on a tangent though here. How do you define pride? If pride != malicious or pride != bad, then why did you bring it up in a negative context (begrudging the establishment, or “deserving” a calling”)?

I am somewhat playing into the orthodox Mormon version of pride as defined by ETB. While I don’t necessarily believe that personally (I probably am closer to your view), it is the standard way to look at it.
Pride := enmity with God
Pride ==> root of all evil
A person whose desire is to help others by becoming a leader does not seem to mesh with those definitions IMHO.

Please explain.

I know my wife felt that our RS was intimidatingly geriatric. The Bishop, however, has reorganized the auxillaries to create younger RS leadership, so there are more younger women attending RS these days.

As to the Elders doing all the work, I know our HPGL gets tapped for a lot of service in the middle of the week because he is retired, whereas the Elders are at work. He keeps saying he needs to go back to work so he can get a vacation!

generally no matter the structure of the organisation, it is human nature to be prideful (both men & women) although we demonstrate it in differing ways, (some women perhaps wait for weddings to wear the “prettiest” hat’s or put on the most “spiritual” voice), Men are less subtle.

Re #32

I believe there is a difference between leadership within the Church & Secular Leadership, one does not necessary lend to the other. I think I’m quite a good leader in my career however I think I’m a rubbish leader in my calling.

Yes, I can agree that one does not necessarily lend itself to the other. I just don’t like the blanket accusation that those who aspire to leadership in the church are prideful. Maybe I was prideful, but my motives were more pure than that. I wanted to help people and thought I could be effective.

I believe there is a difference between leadership within the Church & Secular Leadership, one does not necessary lend to the other. I think I’m quite a good leader in my career however I think I’m a rubbish leader in my calling.

Hawkgrrrl #13 “those who want to lead, and those who want to hide” this is interesting, I see this as a dichotomy in which both are a result of pride, one who is proud enough to believe that they deserve a “Higher” calling or status the other who desires the status and has been passed over now begrudges the “establishment”.

See this stereotype rubs me the wrong way. Before my faith crisis I was one who aspired to callings. However, this had nothing to do with pride. It had to do with the fact that I thought I would be a good leader and make a difference. To me, this is the church equivalent of telling MBA students that their desire to be a business administrator is evil because they surely think they’re better than others.

Some people are natural born leaders, and tend to gravitate towards, even want, opportunities to do what they’re naturally good at. I fail to see why this falls under the sin of “pride”? I think what we’re really trying to say is that those who desire to usurp leadership do it as a result of pride.

I do think that there are gender dynamics here however, there is a key proportion of sisters that would be just as covetous and ambitious. Women create there own forms of hierarchy, men would do this through influence,power,money etc. Women’s status is measured in many others ways.

My point is: the same dynamics you see within priesthood quorums you will also find within RS (although on a more subtle scale).

The reason why there are more younger sisters being used within the ward is Primary, now I believe more priesthood should be used in Primary and in our ward they are, but there is a key majority of primary callings that are occupied by sisters.