12 Year Old Deacons
My son turned 12 and became a deacon this last month. I was and am very proud of him and his choices and decisions. He is as worthy a young man as ever recieved the priesthood (he had personally read the book of mormon before his baptism). However, in my studies of the Doctrine and Covenants, nowhere do I find reference to young men recieving the Aaronic Priesthood. Indeed, the references I find typically address adults being given the Aaronic Priesthood. The responsibilities of the Aaronic Priesthood are great. I must admit to wondering why young men who mostly do not understand the implications nor the resposibilities are given the priesthood.
Now I must admit that part of this might stem from the feeling of despair that my only son is growing up and by association so am I. I remember who I was when I was 12 years old. In no way was I ready to understand or accept the priesthood.
I understand the role that 19 year old young men must accept as they become Melchizedek Priesthood holders. The Aaronic Priesthood helps them to prepare to recieve that priesthood. But when did it become necessary to give it to children?
IIRC, they began giving the AP to young men in 1853. I don’t know what the justification was.
Comment by Mogget — 3/27/2006 @ 6:42 pm
This is something I have wondered about for quite some time. There is an article that I have been wanting and will pick up while I am in Utah next week and send you a copy of it (amazing that not a single library out here carries is):
To be frank, I’m not sure I do understand the wisdom of the practice. I know the general perspective is that it is the preparatory priesthood and they need to learn how to use it to prepare them for their missions. This doesn’t particularly hold up well when confronted with the early history of the Church, however. But, then again, I am not sure we do that well, explaining and preparing for the oath and covenant of the Melkisedek priesthood.
Our history is quite explicit that the aaronic priesthood has a lot more potential than administering the sacrement once a week.
Just some related (but not that much) thoughts and questions:
They let Elder’s Quorums presidents set appart their instructors, why don’t they let deacon’s quorum presidents do it?
I kind of fancy Brigham’s thoughts that one day the endowment would be sepperated into its levitical and melchizedec portions to let the Saints be prepared.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/27/2006 @ 7:12 pm
Craig, I understand some of your feelings — my son just turned 12 at the beginning of this month. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the Church established the current practice of ordaining boys to the Aaronic Priesthood beginning with the re-organization of the priesthood in 1877.
Another article to read (also by Hartley)might be:
“The Priesthood Reorganization of 1877: Brigham Young’s Last Achievement” BYU Studies 20 (fall 1979):3-36.
Comment by kris — 3/27/2006 @ 9:01 pm
Nice pull, Kris! Thanks.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/27/2006 @ 9:26 pm
Ok, I can see that it was adopted in 1877, can anyone find anything explaining why and by what authority? Was it an administrative change, anounced in general conference or a gradual adoption that was formalized in 1877?
Comment by Craig S. — 3/27/2006 @ 10:13 pm
Here is a link to that Hartley paper. A definate must-read.
It seems that by the 1877 reorganization there was general confusion in the church structure. Odd arrangements in hierarchy were common and Aaronic priesthood quorums (which acted has Home Teachers on steroids) were pretty much nonexistent. The article quotes Elder Richards as being recorded:
In July, 1877, President Young released a circular that overhauled just about everything (including apostolic succession). In it was noted the change to young men:
Other interesting changes including holding weekly sacrement services.
According to the article:
It seems that each stake implemented the council differently, with some being ordained at 11 and other at 14. I would submit that the average youth in 1877 would have a different level of maturity than now – though the needs of the church have changed equally.
An interesting comparison is to the Community of Christ who never did give the priesthood to youths.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/27/2006 @ 11:11 pm
Once again I bow to your arcane church knowledge!
Comment by Craig S. — 3/27/2006 @ 11:59 pm
Really, I just read the article Kris cited. Nothing particularly special 🙂 But thanks!
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/28/2006 @ 1:11 am
Interesting topic. The quote above on the 1877 restructuring makes sense. The ratio of new converts to established members wouldn’t be as great as in the first decades of the restoration, so the population that would provide adult deacons would not be what it was at first. On the flip side, the apostles are much older now than in the past. If inclined, we could say that the priesthood is expanding, at least in the dimension of age.
Somewhat related was my experience in Mar Vista, second oldest ward in Los Angeles. The stock of priesthood leaders was pretty small, so for a couple years the elder’s quorum president was a high priest in his mid 30’s who had most recently served in the bishopric.
Comment by John Mansfield — 3/28/2006 @ 10:43 am
That is really interesting John, but makes sense. It is also possible, considering that people stay in leadership longer (increasing lifespan), the less turn over there is and consequently less opportunity for advancement.
One of the things the article pointed out was that Birgham was insistant that you had the appropriate number to make a quorum. It makes sense, shen you consider that it would be odd to have a quorum of the 12 with 5 people in it.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/28/2006 @ 12:10 pm
It makes sense, when you consider that it would be odd to have a quorum of the 12 with 5 people in it.
Yet it is not nearly so odd to have a quorum of the seventy with nowhere near 70 people in it.
Comment by a random John — 3/28/2006 @ 2:39 pm
The historical perspective is interesting. We see somewhat the same sort of dilemma here in Laie with a small community and lots of singles wards. Lots of high priests result from the bishoprics. Perhaps if that happened in the whole church, we’d have to find more folks to make into Elders (which, perhaps is another reason for the switch for young men getting the Melchisedek Priesthood while in their senior year of highschool?–in addition to getting them ready for missions and giving them the sense of responsibility that might keep them from messing up their chances to go on a mission)
In terms of unprepared young men getting responsibility, I remember my interview when I became a deacon. I expected a hearty congratulations, as I was a member just returning to activity, and had less parental push than many of the other young men. I think the youth of today (and I don’t dis-include my generation–I’m not saying these are bad kids; I’m one of them.) are getting used to increasing accolades for decreasing effort as part of the effort to encourage–but that is a societal thing, not just a church thing. Instead, my bishop wisely asked me if I was sure I really wanted to do this and impressed on me the importance of what I was doing. He left me with the impression that what I was doing was a lifetime decision–that if I made the choice to be a deacon (and it was a definite if–there was no pressure), I would never be able to walk away from the responsibility of being a priesthood holder. I’ve always felt that I made a commitment on that day I had to live up to. It was a covenant, though I didn’t know the word. I hope I can instill that in my kids.
Comment by Steve H — 3/28/2006 @ 8:43 pm
That is really inspirational, Steve. I had also forgotten about the change to ordain high schoolers to the Melchizedek Priesthood. I wonder how wide spread that practice is. It isn’t happening here at all.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/29/2006 @ 12:17 am
I’ve never heard of this thing about ordaining YM elders at an earlier age… can anyone give any more details?
Comment by Graham — 3/29/2006 @ 9:50 pm
You can be made an Elder as soon as you turn 18, which means many high school seniors are made Elders. I was made an Elder while still in high school–a full 13 months before I left on my mission. That was 13 years ago, so it’s not anything new.
Comment by Steve — 3/29/2006 @ 10:13 pm
I knew that you could be made an elder at 18. I thought you and J were saying it could be even younger.
Comment by Graham — 3/29/2006 @ 11:58 pm
Steve,
I didn’t know that they were doing it so long ago. I have the impression that they are doing it more frequently now. Does anyone have a sense of whether that is correct or not?
Comment by Steve H — 3/30/2006 @ 7:41 pm
I know a stake president who a couple of years ago recieved the council to make 18 year olds Elders and it was given as “new” council.
When I was growing up it was after you graduated highschool that was the customary time.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/30/2006 @ 11:09 pm
I just remembered a selection from the L. John Nuttall diary (secretary to the both John Taylor and Willfor Woodruff). In 1877, he asked Brigham Young some questions about the Temple and recorded his answers. One of which was as follows:
Kind of puts some perspective him on giving kids the priesthood that year at the same age.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/26/2006 @ 6:22 pm