Priesthood progression

[HaggisShuu]

After reading D&C 20 and I have a question. Why was Priesthood progression formally tied to age in 1908? 
 

The revelation makes no mention of age and after reading the roles and responsibilities of each office it doesn't feel like what was intended. For example, if no Elders are present, a priest presides, if no priests a teacher and if no teacher a deacon. Obviously these would be extremely exceptional circumstances, but it doesn't seem reasonable to have potentially an 11 year old preside over sacrament meeting for example. 

looking at verse 58-59

Quote

58 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

59 They are, however, to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.

As ordinations now take place in the year a young man turns 12 and 14, they will usually receive these offices when 11 and 13 respectively. Many children these ages will struggle to warn, expound, teach and invite as they are still very much developing their own knowledge of the gospel and confidence. 
 

I do think the age based progression is a good thing, but reading D&C 20 I felt like the things these offices require are all very adult, and quite difficult for children to be effective at. So what motivated the switch to age based progression? 

[HaggisShuu]

An additional thought:

Age based progression seems to have had some side effects within Church culture. A Deacon seems to be treated solely as a sacrament passer, when the office clearly requires so much more to be done. And Teachers who have the responsibilities:

Quote

53 The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;

54 And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

Are treated as premium sacrament passers. 
It seems like Deacons were intended to teach, and Teachers intended to "police" for lack of a better term. 

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

After reading D&C 20 and I have a question. Why was Priesthood progression formally tied to age in 1908? ...

...So what motivated the switch to age based progression? 

The population of the church and the nature of wards/stakes at the time.

The Church had grown to over 400,000 members ordained to the priesthood.  The organization of wards and stakes were haphazard.  Not all men were ordained. The practices between wards (bishops) and stakes (stake pres) varied so much that you'd think you were in a completely different Church.  Any given ward might have an abundance of Melchizedek priesthood or a single deacon. (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Additionally, with many men merely "sitting in the congregation" they felt like there was nothing for them to "do."   And when men have nothing to do, they go inactive.

It was fairly clear that we had enough males to perform the necessary leadership and liturgical functions.  But we needed a system by which to ordain sufficient men to the required offices to perform such duties in each locality.  And it was a goal to allow each stake (for the most part) to act independently.

Many methods were considered. They realized that if they based it on age, it was a systematic way of "forcing" leadership to look at every male in the ward/stake. It encouraged all males to be ordained as they came of age.  They settled on the procedure that eventually evolved into the system we have today.

I particularly like it in this day and age because it has become a rite of passage.  And in a world where that has been taken away from our society and replaced with activism, influencing, and debauchery as a rite of passage, I'm very thankful that we (at the very least) have such a thing.

Edited March 12 by Carborendum

[mordorbund]

If you’re interested in the history of ordaining young men to the Aaronic Priesthood, you may enjoy reading From Men to Boys, LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996, by William G. Hartley (pages 80-136).

As for the duties falling by the wayside, I agree that deacons are not given many opportunities for exhortation (except once or twice a year when they’re asked to give a sermon in sacrament meeting) but teachers fulfill their duties through ministering. I remember doing so at 14 and it still continues today.

[HaggisShuu]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The population of the church and the nature of wards/stakes at the time.

The Church had grown to over 400,000 members ordained to the priesthood.  The organization of wards and stakes were haphazard.  Not all men were ordained. The practices between wards (bishops) and stakes (stake pres) varied so much that you'd think you were in a completely different Church.  Any given ward might have an abundance of Melchizedek priesthood or a single deacon. (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Additionally, with many men merely "sitting in the congregation" they felt like there was nothing for them to "do."   And when men have nothing to do, they go inactive.

It was fairly clear that we had enough males to perform the necessary leadership and liturgical functions.  But we needed a system by which to ordain sufficient men to the required offices to perform such duties in each locality.  And it was a goal to allow each stake (for the most part) to act independently.

Many methods were considered. They realized that if they based it on age, it was a systematic way of "forcing" leadership to look at every male in the ward/stake. It encouraged all males to be ordained as they came of age.  They settled on the procedure that eventually evolved into the system we have today.

I particularly like it in this day and age because it has become a rite of passage.  And in a world where that has been taken away from our society and replaced with activism, influencing, and debauchery as a rite of passage, I'm very thankful that we (at the very least) have such a thing.

A totally sensible explanation. 
Thank you. Looking at the responsibilities each office holds a second time, I think a large part comes down to how the parents prepare their children to receive an office. 
 

[Just_A_Guy]

Something that gobsmacked me a couple weeks ago while perusing D&C 107, and of which I’m still pondering the significance (or lack thereof):

Technically, scripturally, there’s no such thing as a quorum of deacons, or teachers, or priests, or elders.  These groups sit in “council” in groups whose size is scripturally limited; but they are not called “quorums”.  Scripturally a “quorum” is a body with authority to govern the church-at-large, and there are only five of them:

—The First Presidency

—The Q12

—A group consisting of all 70s in the Church

—A group consisting of all stake high councilors in the Church

—the high council in “Zion” (originally Missouri and later for a time, IIRC, a specific stake in SLC).

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

(or lack thereof)

^This.

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Technically, scripturally, there’s no such thing as a quorum of deacons, or teachers, or priests, or elders.

Nice that we have a living prophet and revelation guiding the church, eh?

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Scripturally a “quorum” is a body with authority to govern the church-at-large

Isn't "at-large" a bit confusing and subjective here? I mean you mention the 70s and high councilors. Surely the 70s and high councilors don't "govern" the church "at-large" (quote marks implying subjective words).

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Something that gobsmacked me a couple weeks ago while perusing D&C 107, and of which I’m still pondering the significance (or lack thereof):

Technically, scripturally, there’s no such thing as a quorum of deacons, or teachers, or priests, or elders.  These groups sit in “council” in groups whose size is scripturally limited; but they are not called “quorums”.  Scripturally a “quorum” is a body with authority to govern the church-at-large, and there are only five of them:

I respectfully disagree. 

Quote

The word quorum can be used in two ways:

• A specified group of men who hold the same office of the priesthood.
• A majority, or the minimum number of members in a priesthood group that must be in attendance at a meeting to conduct the business of the Church

  -- Guide to the Scriptures (Quorum)

Section 124 should be used to inform those reading Section 107 in this regard.

Quote

133 And again, I give unto you Don C. Smith to be a president over a quorum of high priests;

...

136 I give unto him Amasa Lyman and Noah Packard for counselors, that they may preside over the quorum of high priests of my church, saith the Lord.

137 And again, I say unto you, I give unto you John A. Hicks, Samuel Williams, and Jesse Baker, which priesthood is to preside over the quorum of elders, which quorum is instituted for standing ministers; nevertheless they may travel, yet they are ordained to be standing ministers to my church, saith the Lord.

138 And again, I give unto you Joseph Young, Josiah Butterfield, Daniel Miles, Henry Herriman, Zera Pulsipher, Levi Hancock, James Foster, to preside over the quorum of seventies;

 -- D&C 124:133, 136-138

These verses (scriptural) specifically speak to offices that we call Stake Presidents and Elders Quorum Presidents today.  The stake-level seventy are defunct.

There are apparently other verses that do, indeed, refer to the traditional "at-large" quorums that you mentioned.  But I don't see why that would denote exclusivity of other (lesser) bodies that we commonly call quorums as well.

The summary at the section heading indicates it is so. 

Quote

123–45, General and local officers are named, along with their duties and quorum affiliations.

This is backed up by the historical record which indicates that the named individuals were officers over local units pursuant to this instruction.

ALSO: I believe the significance of section 107 was to dictate quorum sizes and nature of operation: viz. The Aaronic is ward-based, and the Melchizedek is Stake-based.  Although we seem to treat the Elders' quorum today as a ward unit. But the details about the how, whys, etc. are sprinkled throughout the section to the point that it is difficult to summarize.

Edited March 13 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

We tend to think in limited terms.  In short, we think of the authority of the priesthood in mortal terms.  There is a great work that takes place when we pass from this physical realm into the spiritual realm to await the resurrection.  All things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d are done by the authority of the priesthood.  Verse 59 or section 20 has particular importance.  All that are ordained to the priesthood have the authority to bring others unto Christ.  However, the keys of the ordinances are only available in our physical mortal state.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

On 3/12/2025 at 12:39 AM, HaggisShuu said:

An additional thought:

Age based progression seems to have had some side effects within Church culture. A Deacon seems to be treated solely as a sacrament passer, when the office clearly requires so much more to be done. And Teachers who have the responsibilities:

Are treated as premium sacrament passers. 
It seems like Deacons were intended to teach, and Teachers intended to "police" for lack of a better term. 

Maybe this has been said (I didn't read all the responses), but me, for example, being an Elder...am STILL a Deacon.

The age thing (unlike baptism), clearly isn't a hard rule, since we get 11 year old deacons now. But we are, undoubtedly, training young men. Ideally, yeah, 11-year-olds would be teaching... but...really? I'm a Teacher's quorum advisor...and some of those kids... like, you know... I don't want to use the word "retarded" or....anything...and not because it's politically incorrect to do so (which I shouldn't use it for that reason either)... but it's just a maturity thing. They're children still. And they act like it. The ages of 12 to 18 are HUGELY transitional years on maturing. We are training them. They get the priesthood young because they're old enough to start really learning and developing maturity and responsibility and all that...but they are NOT mature enough to just do it. So we train, and we train by assigning, and expecting, and giving responsibility to, and etc.

And this is seen through more than just passing the sacrament and so forth. Almost every Young Man at some point will end up in a presidency, unless they're just not willing or active. And the way classes run now...the Young Men teach. And, boy howdy, we struggle with that. But they're learning. They improve, sometimes, in some ways, bit by bit. They're learning and preparing for missions. They're developing the things they need to become what being a Deacon mean by being Deacons, Teachers, etc.

So, no, I don't agree they're treated as solely a sacrament passer...not in the least. But that is one way where they do learn, if nowhere else, responsibility, dignity, reverence, and so-forth.

They are also all assigned as ministers. Which...once again... teaching, watching over the church, etc., But as Young Men...they're in training.

[mordorbund]

Ah, the old quorum vos unum. Elder Christofferson has something to say on that.