Why are age limits set on PH ordinations?

[Moliere]

I've been kicking this one around in my mind for a bit. I'm not concerned with the current policy, however I would find it more beneficial for young men and adults to be advanced in the PH more based on their maturity in the PH or understanding of their current roles than based solely on age. I for one felt like I never understood my role as a deacon. I mean, I understood I held the keys to the ministering of angels but really what does that mean to a 12-13 year old boy? It's obviously beneficial though that the responsibilities of a deacon are kept while others are being added on when the boy is ordained to be a teacher.

I've tried to find some doctrinal statements for age limits on PH ordinations and can't find anything. In fact I found the opposite with John theBaptists' ordination happening while in the womb, however it is odd that he never received the MPH. I'm sure there are several others that were ordained to either PH at young ages (Moroni certainly comes to mind).

I don't dislike the current structure of the PH with the age limits, but I do feel at times that we hurry the boys along through the ordinations before they have time to fully grasp the concepts. Part of this hurrying along is to ordaing them Elders before they are 19 so they can serve missions, but is that the best reason? Would it really hurt to have deacons ranging in ages from 12-18, teachers from 16-24, and priests from 22-40? Then we could actually ordain men as Elders when they are elder.

What think ye?

[Indy Coug]

You need to have the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to being sealed in the temple. That would be problematic with your suggested revised timeline.

[Moliere]

You need to have the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to being sealed in the temple. That would be problematic with your suggested revised timeline.

The timeline has mere suggestions that could be modified as needed.

[Uncle Ted]

Maybe we could go back to only the Sons of Levi holding the Aaronic Priesthood.

[Paperback Writer]

I'm OK with AP advancement based on age (12, 14, 16). What I wish the LDS church would ditch is the high amount of nepotism for AP quorum presidents. This occurred decades ago when I was in AP and is still alive and kicking today. If a kids father is in the bishopric or stake presidency, then it's almost guaranteed he will be "called" as his quorum president regardless of his maturity or abilities.

What I don't understand is what qualifies one for HP advancement from Elder. It's not based on age.

[Jacob]

I for one felt like I never understood my role as a deacon. I mean, I understood I held the keys to the ministering of angels but really what does that mean to a 12-13 year old boy? It's obviously beneficial though that the responsibilities of a deacon are kept while others are being added on when the boy is ordained to be a teacher.


I don't dislike the current structure of the PH with the age limits, but I do feel at times that we hurry the boys along through the ordinations before they have time to fully grasp the concepts.

Is it really that hard to understand that your role as a deacon is to pass the sacrament and get some adult to drive you around and collect fast offerings which could have easily be paid at the church?

It seems like you are wishing that the priesthood had more meaning and power than it does in today's church., especially among the youth. That's a different issue than the one you have presented, I think.

[Green Monstah]

I've been kicking this one around in my mind for a bit. I'm not concerned with the current policy, however I would find it more beneficial for young men and adults to be advanced in the PH more based on their maturity in the PH or understanding of their current roles than based solely on age. I for one felt like I never understood my role as a deacon. I mean, I understood I held the keys to the ministering of angels but really what does that mean to a 12-13 year old boy? It's obviously beneficial though that the responsibilities of a deacon are kept while others are being added on when the boy is ordained to be a teacher.

I've tried to find some doctrinal statements for age limits on PH ordinations and can't find anything. In fact I found the opposite with John theBaptists' ordination happening while in the womb, however it is odd that he never received the MPH. I'm sure there are several others that were ordained to either PH at young ages (Moroni certainly comes to mind).

I don't dislike the current structure of the PH with the age limits, but I do feel at times that we hurry the boys along through the ordinations before they have time to fully grasp the concepts. Part of this hurrying along is to ordaing them Elders before they are 19 so they can serve missions, but is that the best reason? Would it really hurt to have deacons ranging in ages from 12-18, teachers from 16-24, and priests from 22-40? Then we could actually ordain men as Elders when they are elder.

What think ye?

I have a semi-related question. A Mormon favorite scripture re: the Priesthood is Hebrews 5:4 (no man taketh this honour until himself but he that was called of God, as was Aaron). With a lockstep system, it seems that we're absolutely removing from the equation any sort of calling from God. You're automatically called, regardless of personal desire, maturity (as EJ points out), knowledge, etc.

I can see how it applies to leadership positions, but not for priesthood offices.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Is it really that hard to understand that your role as a deacon is to pass the sacrament and get some adult to drive you around and collect fast offerings which could have easily be paid at the church?

It seems like you are wishing that the priesthood had more meaning and power than it does in today's church., especially among the youth. That's a different issue than the one you have presented, I think.

It's a deeper issue too. If I get a chance in the next few days, I might just elaborate on how this segues into my prophetess question from a few days ago.

[Green Monstah]

In my experience....

I'm OK with AP advancement based on age (12, 14, 16). What I wish the LDS church would ditch is the high amount of nepotism for AP quorum presidents. This occurred decades ago when I was in AP and is still alive and kicking today. If a kids father is in the bishopric or stake presidency, then it's almost guaranteed he will be "called" as his quorum president regardless of his maturity or abilities.

What I don't understand is what qualifies one for HP advancement from Elder. It's not based on age.

My sense is that it is sometimes based on need (e.g., a 35 year old was just made a HP because we don't have many in our ward and they need a few young bucks to do some heavy lifting in the HPQ), sometimes on age (a 60 year old who wants to participate with his peers in the HPQ), and then the easy one, on callings that require it. Of course, it could be led by inspiration a lot of the time as well.

[Paperback Writer]

My sense is that it is sometimes based on need (e.g., a 35 year old was just made a HP because we don't have many in our ward and they need a few young bucks to do some heavy lifting in the HPQ), sometimes on age (a 60 year old who wants to participate with his peers in the HPQ), and then the easy one, on callings that require it. Of course, it could be led by inspiration a lot of the time as well.

That's my expereince as well. I've always wondered if they (LDS church local leadership) track temple attendance. Or make note of who attends stake priesthood meetings, etc. In my ward there are many Elders older than HPs and it's funny when the HP duck moving "assignments" because they are "too old" and men older then them show up to help move in/out a family.

[Moliere]

Is it really that hard to understand that your role as a deacon is to pass the sacrament and get some adult to drive you around and collect fast offerings which could have easily be paid at the church?

It seems like you are wishing that the priesthood had more meaning and power than it does in today's church., especially among the youth. That's a different issue than the one you have presented, I think.

Those aren't the only roles of a deacon and this could easily be more expounded to the teachers who are to see that the church meets together often. How often have you seen a teacher fulfill this duty and how do they fulfill it? How are they supposed to make sure there is no iniquity? Seems like better duties for a more mature person, however I don't mind teaching these duties to a 14 year old but my problem is when they try to implement them without stretching the meaning.

Your last paragraph is probably spot on, but having more meaning implies that a PH holder can actually perform his duties.

[Moliere]

I have a semi-related question. A Mormon favorite scripture re: the Priesthood is Hebrews 5:4 (no man taketh this honour until himself but he that was called of God, as was Aaron). With a lockstep system, it seems that we're absolutely removing from the equation any sort of calling from God. You're automatically called, regardless of personal desire, maturity (as EJ points out), knowledge, etc.

I can see how it applies to leadership positions, but not for priesthood offices.

Good thoughts and yes this is one way that I've approached this thought, at least in my own mind.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm OK with AP advancement based on age (12, 14, 16). What I wish the LDS church would ditch is the high amount of nepotism for AP quorum presidents. This occurred decades ago when I was in AP and is still alive and kicking today. If a kids father is in the bishopric or stake presidency, then it's almost guaranteed he will be "called" as his quorum president regardless of his maturity or abilities.

Nepotism is alive and well in the church all the way to the top. Ann M. Dibb of the general YWs, who spoke in our recent stake conference, is the daughter of Thomas S. Monson. Richard G. Hinckley, a GA, is the son of our last president. In the business world that would raise some questions if that happened. It is OK in the church.

What I don't understand is what qualifies one for HP advancement from Elder. It's not based on age.

The recommendation of the bishop or stake president.

[Green Monstah]

Nepotism is alive and well in the church all the way to the top. Ann M. Dibb of the general YWs, who spoke in our recent stake conference, is the daughter of Thomas S. Monson. Richard G. Hinckley, a GA, is the son of our last president. In the business world that would raise some questions if that happened. It is OK in the church.

"If I weren't Heber Kimball's boy, I wouldn't be a damned thing in this Church!"

-J. Golden Kimball

[Moliere]

The recommendation of the bishop or stake president.

But it oftentimes is based on age....or I guess it's more accurate to say that Elders will start attending HPG at a certain age and they usually get ordained shortly after that time....at least in my experience. I've seen many Elders that are older than 40 years old start attending HPG at the recommendation of the bishop. I've also seen the bishop recommend that an older Elder attend HPG but have that Elder tell him he wants to stay in EQ.

My question really is "what qualifies someone to hold the PH?" and my observation is that they turn 12 and are deemed worthy. This was most likely not the case in Joseph Smith's time and certainly not in the primitive church. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it feels....IDK....somewhat superficial at times.