Comments on: 12 Year Old Deacons

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:22:01 +0000

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:

At what age can children have their Endowments?

If of a naturally ripe and early development of mind and body as early as twelve years. but as a general rule fifteen years old is early enough.

Kind of puts some perspective him on giving kids the priesthood that year at the same age.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:09:19 +0000

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.

By: Steve H

Steve H — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:41:00 +0000

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?

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:58:51 +0000

I knew that you could be made an elder at 18. I thought you and J were saying it could be even younger.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:13:30 +0000

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.

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:50:48 +0000

I’ve never heard of this thing about ordaining YM elders at an earlier age… can anyone give any more details?

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:17:30 +0000

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.

By: Steve H

Steve H — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:43:21 +0000

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.

By: a random John

a random John — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:39:48 +0000

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.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:10:59 +0000

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.