Why were seventies done away with?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I assume that all the current members of the GA Seventies are ordained High Priests???

Yup the main problem is that if you look at structurally what seventies did was largely taken over by mission presidents and missionaries. If you made all the missionaries seventies in practice you'd be getting away from the calling of elder. If you made mission presidents seventies they couldn't do many of the things they need to do as high priests - especially in areas without stakes. Likewise the quorums of the seventy in part now function as a kind of super stake with regions. But because they are basically functioning as a kind of stake president over stakes they have to be high priests. And since the presidency of the seventy have to be over the quorum of the seventy and set them apart they have to be high priests too.

Technically we still have seventies we just have high priests acting as seventies. Much like the bishop is a high priest and also the head of the Aaronic Priesthood in a ward. In theory they could separate the two positions but there are good structural reasons to have the bishop fulfill both roles. In the same way it's useful to have the quorum of the seventy act both as seventies and then heads over bishops/stake presidents.

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

Technically we still have seventies we just have high priests acting as seventies. Much like the bishop is a high priest and also the head of the Aaronic Priesthood in a ward. In theory they could separate the two positions but there are good structural reasons to have the bishop fulfill both roles. In the same way it's useful to have the quorum of the seventy act both as seventies and then heads over bishops/stake presidents.

We have the CALLING of Seventy in the Church but we no longer have the priesthood office of Seventy.
In the early days of the Church the Seventy were ordained as Apostles.  But since the very beginning the High Priests and Seventies jockeyed over who was the higher position in the hierarchical structure of the priesthood.
Church ended the squabbling by ordaining the Seventies as High Priests, and then calling High Priests to serve in the calling of Seventies, effectively eliminating the priesthood office and creating a Church calling.
Except, that's not what the scriptures say about the Seventies.

EDIT - Redacted.  Bit of research showed this claim was wrong.

Edited April 13, 2017 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We have the CALLING of Seventy in the Church but we no longer have the priesthood office of Seventy.
In the early days of the Church the Seventy were ordained as Apostles.  But since the very beginning the High Priests and Seventies jockeyed over who was the higher position in the hierarchical structure of the priesthood.
Church ended the squabbling by ordaining the Seventies as High Priests, and then calling High Priests to serve in the calling of Seventies, effectively eliminating the priesthood office and creating a Church calling.
Except, that's not what the scriptures say about the Seventies.

I really want to share an old joke I heard on my mission about the competition between high priests and seventies but it probably violates board rules.

Actually, I believe making the seventies General Authorities fits better with the description in scripture. They are supposed to travel and report to the apostles who will tell them where they are sent. Putting them in the local church structure put them under the leadership of the Stake Presidency and the High Council which seems opposed to the revelation that they serve under the traveling High Council (the apostles).

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Boy, I couldn't disagree with this more. It's a revealed priesthood office whose use and organization is covered in section 107. I think killing it in the 1980s is tragic.

The reason I asked was I was reading the very end of B.H. Roberts's autobiography again last night, which deals with his (and the other presidents of the 70 --- particularly, J. Golden Kimball) sharp disagreement with President Grant and the Twelve's pending decision to make the seventies' quorums stake quorums. He includes his letters, and I think from an evidence and argument standpoint, he had the stronger position (no contest). He presciently said that they might as well do away with the office entirely and just make them high priests, using their logic (which is exactly what happened in the 1980s), and he convincingly pointed out that, while the President can do whatever he wants, doing so would be contrary to revelation and without a revelation backing it. As it happens, the changes were made as policy changes without a revelation. 

One of his sticking points was that, by revelation, the quorums are general, not stake. They transcend stake boundaries, and are outside of the authority of the stake president (until the Church changed that in the 1920s). They answered to the seven presidents of the seventy and the First Quorum of the Seventy. 

I was also among the last stake missionaries. What I miss about it was the requirement to spend 10 hours a week doing missionary work (moving to ward missionaries dropped any time requirement). My wife and I were newlyweds, and had a good time independently doing our work (our ward was antagonistic to missionary work. Our bishop told us not to ask anyone to split with us, and we were pretty much on our own. We really enjoyed the time, though). 

Why was the Presiding Patriarch done away with? No lineal Smith descendant?

 

I'm not a boy.

Sounds like you need to get an argument together and approach the 1st Presidency on this.  I don't see any reasoning whatsoever in your posts that describe why you disagree with me, though.  So I'm guessing if you want to make a strong case, you'll have to get a little more descriptive and stay focused.

Good luck.  Sounds like others have offered why it was discontinued.  It sounds like you'd need to find a reason to reinstate. 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not a boy.

It's hard to tell in an online environment when people are (or might be) kidding. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. "Boy" is an expression (like "Oh, boy!"). But maybe you know that, and your sarcasm didn't come across.

Sounds like you need to get an argument together and approach the 1st Presidency on this.  I don't see any reasoning whatsoever in your posts that describe why you disagree with me, though.

Why I disagree with you that it was a "useless" priesthood office?

I'm not agitating on this issue. Just looking to discuss it. On a Mormon discussion board.

So I'm guessing if you want to make a strong case, you'll have to get a little more descriptive and stay focused.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. 

[rongo]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

In this article, this stake-level organization began earlier, under President Taylor: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/07/the-seventies-a-historical-perspective?lang=eng

This is fascinating, because it directly contradicts Elder Roberts'/Elder Kimball's letters in 1926 arguing against shunting the seventies quorums to the stake level. Elder Dilworth S. Young knows what he's talking about, too, though. 

If President Taylor made this change in the late 1870s, then why were the presidents of the seventies arguing against it in the 1920s?

Interesting.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We have the CALLING of Seventy in the Church but we no longer have the priesthood office of Seventy.
In the early days of the Church the Seventy were ordained as Apostles.  But since the very beginning the High Priests and Seventies jockeyed over who was the higher position in the hierarchical structure of the priesthood.
Church ended the squabbling by ordaining the Seventies as High Priests, and then calling High Priests to serve in the calling of Seventies, effectively eliminating the priesthood office and creating a Church calling.
Except, that's not what the scriptures say about the Seventies.

Right. I'm just distinguishing the office from the structure. Initially apostles were just seen as missionaries - the priesthood conception came later.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's hard to tell in an online environment when people are (or might be) kidding. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. "Boy" is an expression (like "Oh, boy!"). But maybe you know that, and your sarcasm didn't come across.

 

 

Why I disagree with you that it was a "useless" priesthood office?

I said what others have confirmed it seems to me--the reason they discontinued the stake level 70s was because it was not useful anymore, if it ever was.  For some reason you've stated you couldn't disagree with that more, but haven't said, as far as I see, a reason for the disagreement. 

 

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not agitating on this issue. Just looking to discuss it. On a Mormon discussion board.

 

 

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. 

Well, I think it's apparent the Church did away with the notion because it did not serve a useful purpose, or as the Church put it it did not work "In harmony with the needs of the growth of the Church".  Of course I've been all ears to understand why it should never have been "done away with".  I'd be more than willing to discuss it.  I thought I was being helpful in terms of discussing it, not grouchy as it seems you've read me.  As yet, I'm not sure you've said what the problem or issue is.  So, why in your view should the change back in the 80s never have been? 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We have the CALLING of Seventy in the Church but we no longer have the priesthood office of Seventy.
In the early days of the Church the Seventy were ordained as Apostles.  But since the very beginning the High Priests and Seventies jockeyed over who was the higher position in the hierarchical structure of the priesthood.
Church ended the squabbling by ordaining the Seventies as High Priests, and then calling High Priests to serve in the calling of Seventies, effectively eliminating the priesthood office and creating a Church calling.
Except, that's not what the scriptures say about the Seventies.

Making exceptions to scripture is what the Church has been all about since it's inception. 

[JAHS]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We have the CALLING of Seventy in the Church but we no longer have the priesthood office of Seventy.
In the early days of the Church the Seventy were ordained as Apostles.  But since the very beginning the High Priests and Seventies jockeyed over who was the higher position in the hierarchical structure of the priesthood.
Church ended the squabbling by ordaining the Seventies as High Priests, and then calling High Priests to serve in the calling of Seventies, effectively eliminating the priesthood office and creating a Church calling.
Except, that's not what the scriptures say about the Seventies.

Making exceptions to scripture is what the Church has been all about since it's inception. 

A similar example of discontinuing priesthood office positions happened when the church Presiding Patriarch was discontinued.  During the early days of the Church, the main duty of the Church Patriarch was to give patriarchal blessings to those members who did not have convenient access to a stake patriarch. In 1979 the office of Church Patriarch was "retired" because the church had grown large enough to have stake patriarchs available to most all members. 
At this time, Eldred G. Smith was placed on emeritus status and no longer held the position of "Presiding" Patriarch. However, he was still an ordained patriarch and could therefore continue to give blessings when asked to do so just like any other stake patriarch. 

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

A similar example of discontinuing priesthood office positions happened when the church Presiding Patriarch was discontinued.  During the early days of the Church, the main duty of the Church Patriarch was to give patriarchal blessings to those members who did not have convenient access to a stake patriarch. In 1979 the office of Church Patriarch was "retired" because the church had grown large enough to have stake patriarchs available to most all members. 
At this time, Eldred G. Smith was placed on emeritus status and no longer held the position of "Presiding" Patriarch. However, he was still an ordained patriarch and could therefore continue to give blessings when asked to do so just like any other stake patriarch.

Ironically, according to D&C 124, the Presiding Patriarch is the highest priesthood office in the Church, standing above the First Presidency.  Can't imagine why the position was eliminated by the FP and the Apostles...

Joseph knew this when he tried to make Hyrum the head of the Church, but the people wouldn't have it.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

A similar example of discontinuing priesthood office positions happened when the church Presiding Patriarch was discontinued.  During the early days of the Church, the main duty of the Church Patriarch was to give patriarchal blessings to those members who did not have convenient access to a stake patriarch. In 1979 the office of Church Patriarch was "retired" because the church had grown large enough to have stake patriarchs available to most all members. 

At this time, Eldred G. Smith was placed on emeritus status and no longer held the position of "Presiding" Patriarch. However, he was still an ordained patriarch and could therefore continue to give blessings when asked to do so just like any other stake patriarch. 

The history is a bit more complex though. Lost Legacy goes through a lot of that history. That's not in the least to deny the compelling issue that the office really made sense in a smaller rural church rather than a large multinational church. BCC did a good post on the subject a few years back.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ironically, according to D&C 124, the Presiding Patriarch is the highest priesthood office in the Church, standing above the First Presidency.  Can't imagine why the position was eliminated by the FP and the Apostles...

Joseph knew this when he tried to make Hyrum the head of the Church, but the people wouldn't have it.

Could you clarify this a bit. I think I have an idea what you're referring to but I need you to flesh it out before I comment.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ironically, according to D&C 124, the Presiding Patriarch is the highest priesthood office in the Church, standing above the First Presidency.  Can't imagine why the position was eliminated by the FP and the Apostles...

Joseph knew this when he tried to make Hyrum the head of the Church, but the people wouldn't have it.

I think you just answered your own question.  FPs and Apostles wanted the highest, easiest way to do that is to take out the highest. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The history is a bit more complex though. Lost Legacy goes through a lot of that history. That's not in the least to deny the compelling issue that the office really made sense in a smaller rural church rather than a large multinational church. BCC did a good post on the subject a few years back.

Was the Church a small rural Church up to 1979?  You'd think, on this reasoning, the office would have been retired in about 1841.3

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Was the Church a small rural Church up to 1979?  You'd think, on this reasoning, the office would have been retired in about 1841.3

It was largely a small regional church up until the early 70's I'd say. I don't know the figures off the top of my head but I imagine more than 80% of members lived in the Mormon corridor at the end of the 60's. (Arizona, Utah, bits of Nevada, southern Idaho) All of those were well within relatively easy driving range. The international church gets started in the 50's and 60's but I don't think it really becomes significant until the 70's and 80's.

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

It was largely a small regional church up until the early 70's I'd say. I don't know the figures off the top of my head but I imagine more than 80% of members lived in the Mormon corridor at the end of the 60's. (Arizona, Utah, bits of Nevada, southern Idaho) All of those were well within relatively easy driving range. The international church gets started in the 50's and 60's but I don't think it really becomes significant until the 70's.

in 1970 the Church membership reached 3 million.  While in relation to the world that is quite tiny, it still doesn't equate to a small rural Church.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

in 1970 the Church membership reached 3 million.  While in relation to the world that is quite tiny, it still doesn't equate to a small rural Church.

I guess it depends upon your view of small rural. I thought the number was closer to 2 million but I guess I was wrong. Utah definitely wasn't heavily urbanized then though. But I think 2 million, most in the US west is pretty provincial and rural.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I guess it depends upon your view of small rural. I thought the number was closer to 2 million but I guess I was wrong. Utah definitely wasn't heavily urbanized then though. But I think 2 million, most in the US west is pretty provincial and rural.

okee dokes.  I guess I disagree on the definition of rural. 

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

okee dokes.  I guess I disagree on the definition of rural. 

I'm using rural more as opposed to urban = large cities. Utah even when I moved here had a definite rural feel. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm using rural more as opposed to urban = large cities. Utah even when I moved here had a definite rural feel. 

Gotcha.  Not a big deal of course.  Not sure why I was intent on arguing the point. 

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Could you clarify this a bit. I think I have an idea what you're referring to but I need you to flesh it out before I comment.

God describes the priesthood hierarchy of the Church
D&C 124:123 Verily I say unto you, I now give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood, that ye may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek, which is after the order of mine Only Begotten Son.
124 First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall notwithstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you.
125 I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.
126 I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and First Presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church.
127 I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council;
128 Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature.

Joseph clearly understood this when he taught on July 16, 1843 that:
"Said he would not prophecy any more.—Hyrum should be the prophet—(did not tell them he was going to be a priest now, nor a King by and by)" - Letter of Willard Richards to Brigham Young
ALSO
"Proposing Hyrum as a prophet—that he might be (a priest)—so the hearers tell the story." Joseph Smith Diary, by Willard Richards
AND
"P.M. went to the Grove and heard Pres. J. preach on the law of the priesthood. He stated that Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birth-right & he was going to have a reformation and the saints must regard Hyrum for he has authority." - William Clayton Diary

But the people couldn't understand this principle.  So Joseph then said July 23, 1843:
"Last Monday morning certain men came to me.—Bro Joseph Hyrum is no prophet he cant lead the church. you must lead the Church—if you resign I felt curious—& said—here we learn in a priesthood after the order of Melchisedeck—Prophet priest & king. & I will advance from prophet to priest & then to King, not to the kingdoms of this earth but of the most high god.  If I should would there be a great many disappointed"  - Joseph Smith Diary, by Willard Richards
 

The highest priesthood office of the Church is the Presiding Patriarch, not the FP or the 12.
But even that isn't the highest priesthood office on earth.
D&C 132:7 tells us that:
...made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred)...

 

So D&C 124 tells us Hyrum represents the HSP to the Church, holding the sealing power over the Church.  But D&C 132 tells us that there is only one on the earth at a time who represents the HSP holding all the keys.

Isn't priesthood fun!
 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

This has all been interesting to me as I never knew what the 70's did. 

[JAHS]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ironically, according to D&C 124, the Presiding Patriarch is the highest priesthood office in the Church, standing above the First Presidency.  Can't imagine why the position was eliminated by the FP and the Apostles...

Joseph knew this when he tried to make Hyrum the head of the Church, but the people wouldn't have it.

Well his position as Patriarch is the first one listed in D&C 124  where it names the officers, but does that really mean it was the highest position? Later in that section it says about Hyrum:
"That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph; and that he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery;"

If he is receiving counsel from Joseph who will show him the keys,  it sounds like he is more second in line to the President.
 

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Well his position as Patriarch is the first one listed in D&C 124  where it names the officers, but does that really mean it was the highest position? Later in that section it says about Hyrum:
"That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph; and that he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery;"

If he is receiving counsel from Joseph who will show him the keys,  it sounds like he is more second in line to the President.
 

He was second in line to Joseph in the priesthood, but he was higher than Joseph in the priesthood offices of the Church.
ie - As Patriarch to the Church Hyrum outranked Joseph as President/Prophet of the Church etc.  D&C 107 even allows for the Church to excommunicate the President.
BUT - As King & Priest and Senior Apostle and holder of all the keys restored Joseph outranked everyone in the Priesthood, answering only to Christ.

Don't forget, Joseph wanted to leave Hyrum in charge of the Church and go on to focus on higher priesthood offices not within Church purview at that time.
 

Edited April 11, 2017 by JLHPROF