Giving the MP to 12 year olds

[Duncan]

I was thinking given the fact that new male converts are given the Melchizedek Priesthood within a month or two of baptism why don't we give it to 12 year olds, BIC,  when they get the Aaronic Priesthood,  like a combo deal? converts have a matter of weeks to learn about the Priesthood and 12 years have 4 years, usually after baptism to learn about the Priesthood, why not make it the same time frame for everyone? I say this because it's ward conference this weekend and the SP made a pledge to the Area Pres. that he would have 25 advancements in the Priesthood by the end of the year and, as far as I know, they only got 8 and are wanting to interview new male converts. I thought why not give it to 12 years olds and cut down on time

[Benjamin McGuire]

While there is historical precedent for this, I think it's really unlikely.

Back in the day, apostle Matthias Cowley used to say that he was an elder before he was a deacon. In the early LDS Church, after the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the two types of priesthood were kept separate. Some men were ordained to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood, and some were ordained to offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood, and very rarely was a person given more than one office. Everything changed in the late Nauvoo period with the beginning of the temple ordinances. You had to be ordained an Elder to be endowed. And so most of the male members of the Church were ordained as Elders. Subsequently, there were very few ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood. Most Aaronic Priesthood offices were filled by someone who was acting as a Deacon or a Teacher or a Priest. The Church in the late 19th century was trying to keep the ranks of their priesthood quorums filled (as indicated in the D&C - something we don't worry about much today). And so they were regularly ordaining at an earlier and earlier age. When the Kaysville ward was organized, the records show that 36 of the members of the first Elders Quorum there were teenagers - as young as 14 - and most of these were ordained in the endowment house as part of receiving their endowments. Once endowed, they were often then asked to fill vacancies in the High Priest and Seventy quorums (which they almost always accepted) - illustrating a cycle that Church leadership struggled with in that time period.

It was in the Priesthood reformations between 1908 and 1928 (its roots start in the reorganization that occurred in 1877) that the system was changed to more or less what we have today, with priesthood advancement - and the age requirements were rigidly enforced.

I bring up all of this old history because the sorts of quotas that you mention in your comments were used in the mid to late 19th century in Mormonism and created significant structural issues for the Church. While we don't have the same emphasis on structure that we had back then, it seems unlikely to me that we would come full circle in this way and go back to skipping through Aaronic Priesthood offices just to fill an Elder's Quorum.

Of course, I am not sure that we have as many clearly defined duties for Aaronic Priesthood holders either so ...

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

I was thinking given the fact that new male converts are given the Melchizedek Priesthood within a month or two of baptism why don't we give it to 12 year olds, BIC,  when they get the Aaronic Priesthood,  like a combo deal? converts have a matter of weeks to learn about the Priesthood and 12 years have 4 years, usually after baptism to learn about the Priesthood, why not make it the same time frame for everyone? I say this because it's ward conference this weekend and the SP made a pledge to the Area Pres. that he would have 25 advancements in the Priesthood by the end of the year and, as far as I know, they only got 8 and are wanting to interview new male converts. I thought why not give it to 12 years olds and cut down on time

.... .... Technically he is a Lesser Melchizedek Priest because he usually not descended from Levi. Being anointed (of the Holy Ghost) by a Melchizedek Priest is a priestly anointing, so that like a Melchizedek priest, you are born again, transforming the body, so you can obtain the 'office' of priest though you are technically one.

Why not give temple married women office? They are usually involved in the callings of their husbands anyway. 

[MiserereNobis]

12 year old Members of Parliament!?!  

[Que]

John (the "Baptist") specifically told Joseph and Oliver that the bestowal of the Levitical Priesthood had a built-in expiration date: when the descendants of Levi through Aaron take that position back to themselves in righteousness. There are adjustments recently in the Church that hint this change may be on the horizon... What then would we do for our teenagers that need priesthood training and service?

[Rain]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

I was thinking given the fact that new male converts are given the Melchizedek Priesthood within a month or two of baptism why don't we give it to 12 year olds, BIC,  when they get the Aaronic Priesthood,  like a combo deal? converts have a matter of weeks to learn about the Priesthood and 12 years have 4 years, usually after baptism to learn about the Priesthood, why not make it the same time frame for everyone? I say this because it's ward conference this weekend and the SP made a pledge to the Area Pres. that he would have 25 advancements in the Priesthood by the end of the year and, as far as I know, they only got 8 and are wanting to interview new male converts. 

Drives me nuts when people make "goals" for other people. This is a want, a wish for someone else. You can only make a goal for yourself.

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

I thought why not give it to 12 years olds and cut down on time

😆 Sounds like something my husband would say about our stake's baptismal "goals".

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Que said:

There are adjustments recently in the Church that hint this change may be on the horizon...

What adjustments?

[rpn]

Because 12 year olds are not and cannot be adequately prepared to exercise and be accountable for the Melchizedek Priesthood  and don't need it for what their very important sacremental duties are.   And no one in the church should be setting policy based on making something administratively easy.

[Dario_M]

Not even a bad idea. But only if those 12 years old wanna have their AP and MP in their pochet themselfs. 12 year olds are super uhm.......how do i say that? Well...i don't know the word in English. But they are easy to manipulate into what an adult wants them to do. With that you get situations that 12 year olds get meight get their MP without them even wanna have it themselfs. So yes i'm agree it would be efficient to allow 12 years old to get their MP but i wouldn't forse it to them. 

I myself have the AP and i'm still not ready for the MP and i'm not even 12. 31. And i have no idea when i will be ready for it anyway. 😇

Giving 12 year olds so much power and responsebility's is also something to consider about btw. 

[marineland]

14 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Giving 12 year olds so much power and responsebility's is also something to consider about btw. 

What do you mean by so much power?

[Dario_M]

On 10/19/2023 at 10:50 PM, marineland said:

What do you mean by so much power?

People with priesterhood may baptize other people, give the holy ghost to other people, even may try to cure people with pain or other diseases. Etc. That's some power i find. Plus the 12 year old child has a big list with rules and tasks where he needs to hold on. 

Is it not also just important that a child can be a child?

Edited October 24, 2023 by Dario_M

[marineland]

On 10/23/2023 at 8:01 AM, Dario_M said:

Is it not also just important that a child can be a child?

For sure.

[Dario_M]

On 10/24/2023 at 9:43 PM, marineland said:

For sure.

Yeah right? The question is are you not taken that away from that child if you give him/her to much responsibility's? 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Dario_M

[marineland]

11 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah right? The question is are you not taken that away from that child if you give him/her to much responsibility's? 

If the church wants to do that, then there's nothing I can do about it.  I believe parents should
give young kids small responsibilities around the home and let them play and grow up and
experience childhood.

[Dario_M]

8 hours ago, marineland said:

If the church wants to do that, then there's nothing I can do about it.

Huh?? Is it not the parent who decide about what is good for his/her child? 

8 hours ago, marineland said:

I believe parents should
give young kids small responsibilities around the home and let them play and grow up and
experience childhood.

Agree. But what is the MP? 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

But what is the MP? 

Melchizedek Priesthood

[mfbukowski]

On 10/18/2023 at 4:36 AM, Duncan said:

I was thinking given the fact that new male converts are given the Melchizedek Priesthood within a month or two of baptism why don't we give it to 12 year olds, BIC,  when they get the Aaronic Priesthood,  like a combo deal?

Because it is a token of progression.

It grants the power and authority by which the worlds were made, it is believed.

Giving it to one so young and inexperienced would psychologically "cheapen" its importance to members, imo.

Edited October 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Dario_M]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Melchizedek Priesthood

I know what it means thank you so much for letting me know. That's thougtfull of you. 🫂

My question was more about.... how good is it for the child if you give him 100% responsibility's after he receive's the MP? And will all the work that he will get with it not stress the kid out.

At least that was the case with me always (i was not from the LDS at that time though when i was 12 ) .. when i was 12 i always had a hard time when peope would give me a lot of resposibility's  Plus! Saying "no" was also hard for me at that time. So i did it anyway eventhough i didn't wanted too. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I know what it means thank you so much for letting me know. That's thougtfull of you. 🫂

My question was more about.... how good is it for the child if you give him 100% responsibility's after he receive's the MP? And will all the work that he will get with it not stress the kid out.

At least that was the case with me always (i was not from the LDS at that time though when i was 12 ) .. when i was 12 i always had a hard time when peope would give me a lot of resposibility's  Plus! Saying "no" was also hard for me at that time. So i did it anyway eventhough i didn't wanted too. 

Well it would be less responsibility than adults, of course, it would be silly to call a 12 year old to be a Bishop, besides the fact that Bishop also must be married! 😄

But yes, besides some additional responsibility, I think the main problem would be less respect, culturally, for the office.

The word "Elder" is the correct title for anyone who holds that priesthood, so we would have 12 year old "Elders"?  Even a 20 year old missionary with that title was a little odd to me when I joined the church!

[Malc]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well it would be less responsibility than adults, of course, it would be silly to call a 12 year old to be a Bishop, besides the fact that Bishop also must be married! 😄

But yes, besides some additional responsibility, I think the main problem would be less respect, culturally, for the office.

The word "Elder" is the correct title for anyone who holds that priesthood, so we would have 12 year old "Elders"?  Even a 20 year old missionary with that title was a little odd to me when I joined the church!

Quote

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1 Timothy 3:12

Do you think that giving the Aaronic Priesthood to inexperienced youth psychologically "cheapens" its importance to members now, compared to the New Testament days?

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Malc said:

1 Timothy 3:12

Do you think that giving the Aaronic Priesthood to inexperienced youth psychologically "cheapens" its importance to members now, compared to the New Testament days?

Trick question, but I think obviously yes.

High Priests in the temple administered in the Aaronic priesthood, and were the main "ministers" in those days, now the AP passes the Sacrament, and by the way, blesses it, and often now is seen culturally as a lower responsibility BECAUSE it is not a leadership position.

It's a position for "kids".

YET theologically it is one of the most important ordinances in our lives because it reminds us of our associations with the Savior.

I think you are making my point for me- that it is SEEN as an "appendage" to the higher priesthood- and IS, though it serves a very important place in our daily lives and on the Sabbath 

I think we don't think much about its importance because there are no "leadership" functions associated with it.

Edited October 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Franklin Bluth]

One question to think about is why the Aaronic Priesthood was restored at all? Only the Melchizedek Priesthood existed from Adam to Moses, and in the Book of Mormon they only had the Melchizedek Priesthood until after the resurrection. My question is if the Aaronic Priesthood wasn’t necessary for them, why is it necessary for us?

One other thing I’d point out is that the High Priests who officiated in the Tabernacle held the Aaronic Priesthood office of High Priest, they did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood (Aaron himself being at least one exception).

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/28/2023 at 8:03 PM, Franklin Bluth said:

One question to think about is why the Aaronic Priesthood was restored at all? Only the Melchizedek Priesthood existed from Adam to Moses, and in the Book of Mormon they only had the Melchizedek Priesthood until after the resurrection. My question is if the Aaronic Priesthood wasn’t necessary for them, why is it necessary for us?

One other thing I’d point out is that the High Priests who officiated in the Tabernacle held the Aaronic Priesthood office of High Priest, they did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood (Aaron himself being at least one exception).

 

 

All things in their order.

They needed Baptism to finish everything else.

It's one of those details you never think about yet ultimately it turns out as one of the details of the paradigm that were logically necessary for the whole story to hang together.

No baptism, no authority for anything else, no church!!

"Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited October 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Franklin Bluth]

I’m not sure I follow. Baptism can be performed by a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, as can all other Aaronic Priesthood ordinances. As mentioned, the Aaronic Priesthood did not exist separately from the Melchizedek Priesthood until the time of Moses, but we know baptism did exist prior to Moses. Similarly, we know baptism existed in the Book of Mormon prior to the Aaronic Priesthood being introduced in 3 Nephi. 
 

Ultimately I’m trying to learn what people think about the necessity of the Aaronic Priesthood in our time when it wasn’t required in dispensations past.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Franklin Bluth said:

I’m not sure I follow. Baptism can be performed by a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, as can all other Aaronic Priesthood ordinances. As mentioned, the Aaronic Priesthood did not exist separately from the Melchizedek Priesthood until the time of Moses, but we know baptism did exist prior to Moses. Similarly, we know baptism existed in the Book of Mormon prior to the Aaronic Priesthood being introduced in 3 Nephi. 
 

Ultimately I’m trying to learn what people think about the necessity of the Aaronic Priesthood in our time when it wasn’t required in dispensations past.

Read DC 107, I suggest you read all of it because all of it is relevant AND which includes this:

"20.The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments."

The Levites had the AP and Moses was a Levite, and then received the MP from Jethro, his father on law.

Baptisms were a symbolic gesture before that, they were done as an act of repentance, showing one in fact has repented of his sins, but they had no "power" as a covenant done by priesthood authority to "actually" forgive sin.  Perhaps it was something like sackcloth and ashes as a gesture of repentance, but not an ordinance. I have seen that discussed here- in fact it was commonplace in the early church to be baptized whenever one felt they felt they needed a "spiritual bath" as it were- just as a token of their desire to be cleansed of sin- yet they were done without authority or without intent to make it a covenant.   Note the mention in fact of covenants in the above quote- this was more than a bath to wash sin- it was an ordinance with a purpose and a covenant to become members of the church and taken upon themselves the name of Christ.   We hear that every Sunday- the Sacrament REMINDS us of the covenant- but it does not forgive sin as Baptism is believed to do.

 

I am not concerned with the historicity of scripture, frankly, and am not by any means a scriptorian; if you are correct, fine.  It honestly doesn't matter to me, so I am out.

If it bothers you, I suggest you start a thread on it; this thread is, imo, about dead, and your question is fairly off topic anyway.  🤔

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by mfbukowski
corrected scripture reference