I’ve thought about doing a newsletter series on talks that should have never been given.
What I mean is that there are certain talks that have become very popular to use in ways they were never intended to be used.
Or in other words, the prophet, seer, and revelator said one thing and then their words are used by our community in a completely different way.
The Unwritten Order of Things, anyone?
I say that some of these talks should have never been given, not because I disagree with the speaker (often a prophet), but mainly because most misinterpret what they are saying and then count it as doctrine.
I think the only thing holding me back from writing this series is that what I say might be a bit controversial, but I guess that hasn’t stopped me in the past. ????
The recent general conference is a good example.
I’ve already heard individuals say Elder Holland discouraged members of the Church from wearing crosses.
(He never said that.)
There’s an idea floating around (many times in jest) that the new FSY resource now allows for individuals to get tattoos.
(It doesn’t say that.)
Some say Elder Bednar’s talk about garments at the wedding feast was a direct call for our community to be more intentional about wearing the temple garment.
(I interpret it that way, but he still didn’t say that directly.)
Also, because President Nelson got choked up at the end of his closing remarks while stating “May God be with you until we meet again…,” many are interpreting this as a prophecy of his own death in the next six months.
WHAT?!?!
We all know President Nelson really meant, “God be with you until we meet again at my 110th birthday party.”
I’m sure there are many leaders in this audience who have experienced this on a local level.
Statement: “We will no longer be making zoom church available generally.”
Interpretation: “I hate people who don’t come to church, especially the frail elderly, so I am restricting the sacrament online feed from them.”
I’d love to hear any of your personal examples of being misinterpreted as a leader.
In short, I think it is an opportunity to come together and simply not insert additional meaning into words leaders say.
If we suddenly feel offended or confused by something said, step back, take a deep breath, and really consider what was said and what wasn’t said.
If we interpret words from a general leader one way, let’s not count it as general doctrine or policy.
Now, let’s see how many misinterpret what I just said in this email.
Sincerely,
Kurt Francom
Executive Director
Leading Saints
P.S. This is an older newsletter message. Get the up-to-date message weekly by subscribing for free HERE.
I am not a leader of anything in this Church and will likely never be. I could list though, about a dozen things that I struggle with in Church culture. One that kind of relates- and maybe there is a doctrine here I have misunderstood- is concerning being ordained to a High Priest. My husband and I have both been faithful, covenant-keeping members our whole lives, and hope to remain so foe the rest of our lives. But neither one of us have ever held any significant calling. I have never been “called” to be in a Presidency of any Auxillary organization, and he has never been “called” to any calling requiring that he be made a High Priest. So his lack of being a High Priest at the age of 45 has at least one ward member speculating that my husband is somehow not worthy to hold any significant calling- which is a lie because he is very worthy. But- it does cause me pain that him not being ordained to that is like a mark on him that somehow makes me feel like the Lord doesn’t see him as being as good as all those who are High Priests.
So my question is: Can he be ordained to a High Priest without a calling that would require it? Would he need to request that? Or do we have to wait for him to be “called” to that ordination?
Dear Amanda
I appreciate your question. This has been posted a while back and I am not sure if you have received an answer in the meanwhile or still relevant.
I would like to contribute nonetheless.
The short answer to your questions is:
No, generally no one is ordained a high priest just for the sake of being a high priest. It is usually connected to a calling when one is ordained. And being a high priest makes no one more worth than an elder. Both hold the same (melchizedek) priesthood. It’s the same covenant and has the same power depending on how the priesthood is used is based on the holders worthiness and faith.
The long answer, for me, is two-folded here:
1. The type of callings or ordinations (priesthood office) have nothing to do with someone’s worthiness or not to speak one’s standing before God. By that I mean, if someone is keeping the covenants they have entered with God, the calling or or priesthood office one holds does not matter. We are all asked to magnify our calling no matter what it is.
You also mentioned regarding your struggles with Church Culture, which I think is absolutely ok as long as we don’t mix Church culture with gospel doctrines or principles and let it affect the ability to sustain our church leaders. And I realize that for many people this is very difficult.
My dad has been an active member of the church in over 35 years (now at age 67). He is also not ordained a high priest and there is absolutely no reason for that related to worthiness or any capabilities (at least as far as I can say) that would prevent him. With that I want to say that we do not need to worry if we have not been ordained a high priest at age 45 which is still young and we should not have to worry if we never will be ordained a high priest in this life. This brings me also to the 2nd point…
2. Since roughly 5 years the high priest group and elders quorum have been combined on the ward/branch level. So before that there were multiple callings where you would have to be ordained as a high priest. Through that change the number of callings that require you to be ordained a high priest has been significantly reduced (especially on ward level). If I am not mistaken, on a ward level, the only callings where you get ordained as a high priest now are if you are called to the bishopric (so even in a branch you don’t need to be a high priest, to serve in a branch presidency). On a stake level it is only the high council (usually 12 people) and the stake presidency (which usually were already ordained a high priest when they get called to the stake presidency as part of their previous callings in the high council or a bishopric).
If you consider how often these callings change (usually no less than every five years – mostly longer cycles especially for stake presidency) then it will become very likely that a lot of elders will never be ordained a high priest in this life. Especially if you are in a ward of 250+ people.
I’d like to imagine that this change was done 5 years ago apart from many other practical reasons for that exact reason for which you have asked that question. Over the years high priest groups grew and grew and elders quorum got smaller and smaller and the aging elders staying behind may have been left with a feeling such as you and your husband may be having. I assume the member you are referring to that makes speculations about your husbands worthiness (for which he has no right at all) has not arrived in that newer kind of thinking (although it shouldn’t have been accepted thinking all along anyway)
So please do not mistake worthiness for being dependent on the kind of calling or priesthood office (ordination) one has.
Happy to get additional insights (especially if made mistakes regarding the facts).