Top 10 Latter-day Saint teachings that could CHANGE

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

While the second half of this is true, the first is not.

It is better to say that many young boys were not ordained to any priesthood office until 1877. A large minority were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. There are some extreme examples. One of the most interesting cases was John Willard Young, who was ordained an apostle at the age of 11 (1855 iirc). This was not the youngest ordination. George Hunt was ordained a priest at the age of 9 in  1861, and Solomon Harris was ordained a deacon at age 8 (1862). Wilford Woodruff, Jr., was ordained an Elder at the age of 9 in 1849 (he was ordained an elder and endowed at 16). Of Brigham Young's sons, the ten who survived childhood and were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood (and were endowed) at an average age of 16.9 years.

To understand the issues leading to the changes, there are a couple of historical things of interest. At first, men were generally only ordained to one priesthood office (there were exceptions - especially in the formal leadership). The Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood roles were segregated. Aaronic Priesthood offices were selected by local Bishops. Elders Quorums functioned at the Stake level, and were generally autonomous. Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums aggressively recruited from among the Ordained Aaronic Priesthood offices - and they didn't have to consult with local Bishops - and since the Melchizedek Priesthood was necessary to be endowed and since men would rather have the higher rather than the lesser priesthood, there were never enough ordained Deacons, Teachers and Priests. To give some sense, the Kaysville Elders Quorum, in 1865, had 36 members who were ordained as Elders as teenagers. And in the 1870s, while the average age of endowment for men was 22, there were endowments being consistently performed for teenagers as young as 14.

There was another challenge going on - and that was the nature of Priesthood roles in the Ward. The Aaronic Priesthood members (Teachers and Priests) were the ones assigned to administer the sacrament and to perform home visits. In the early 1850s there was pushback from the top leadership of the Church to ordaining young men to the Aaronic Priesthood offices. There was less reservation for ordaining them to the Melchizedek Priesthood - the difference being that the Aaronic Priesthood offices were much more oriented towards an active ministry in the local units - as Brigham Young noted in the 1856 October General Conference:

Another major factor in the changes that occurred in 1877 and then in 1908 was the age distribution of the membership. According to the 1880 census, in that year, 44% of the population of Utah was under the age of 15. That number is staggering. The need to find for this tidal wave of young people a role in the Church was a concern - since the formal Church education programs were also just being started (Sunday School - 1860, Mutual for Young Women - 1869, Mutual for Young Men - 1875, Primary - 1878). When we talk about young boys being ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood between 1877 and the formation of the Aaronic Priesthood Quorums in 1908, we are talking about entirely remaking and redefining the role of lay priesthood in the Church.

By 1847, the administration of the sacrament (which refers primarily to the blessing of the sacrament) was considered the role of Teachers and Priests. To deal with the lack of Aaronic Priesthood holders in the Wards, Bishops began calling Melchizedek Priesthood holders and ordaining them as "acting" teachers and priests. This started in the 1850s. By the mid-1860s, these acting teachers and priests were functioning as quorums within the Ward. They had teaching and sacrament administration assignments from the Bishop - and reported back during their quorum meetings. Because these assignments generally covered city blocks, they were known for a while as "block teachers" (which eventually morphed into home teachers). And it was almost universally 'acting teachers' who administered the sacrament. This assignment as 'acting' officers in the Aaronic Priesthood was a way of keeping the single office sort of approach functioning. It is also noteworthy that even in the Melchizedek Priesthood, the 70s (and the High Priests) were often viewed as lesser quorums from which the Bishops should call their acting Teachers and Priests - they were considered this way because of the lack of direction regarding the priesthood offices in revelations. The shift following 1908 was slow. Wards were reluctant to let young boys administer the sacrament, they did not want young boys doing home visits. They were often assisted by older men - a tradition that has been maintained. The calling of 'acting' teachers and priests continued until around 1940.

So ... it's hard to do this topic justice in a post like this.

We can see how all of these factors lead to the circumstances we have today - and how these various views came together to shape the policies that have existed over my lifetime. But, I think that it's inaccurate to say that young boys were not ordained to any priesthood office - only that they were not ordained to Aaronic Priesthood offices (except under exceptional circumstances). And I would say that traditionally, it was Teachers and Deacons who were understood to have the role of passing the sacrament from the beginning - this is one thing that hasn't really changed at all.

One last note on the passing of the sacrament. In 1928, President Grant wrote to a mission president (an absence of ordained priesthood holders in various mission areas triggered this) that there was "no rule in the Church" about who passes the sacrament. The custom, he wrote, was for boys and men, but there was nothing that would invalidate the sacrament if it was passed by those without the priesthood in the absence of ordained individuals. Preparing the sacrament did not become identified as a priesthood role until 1933. And as late as 1943, the Presiding Bishopric still identified certain parts of sacrament preparation as a role for young women. Part of their role went away when the shift from glass and metal cups to paper occurred (go figure). And while Aaronic Priesthood holders were formally assigned the role of fast offering collections in the 1950s, during WWII, young women participated in that role (as well as in passing the sacrament). So there has always been some flexibility in some of these areas.

This all good historical information but it does still appear that the duty to pass the sacrament was an assignment that was decided on rather than an actual priesthood responsibility. But maybe these assignments were decided on through revelation received by the prophet?

[JVW]

13 hours ago, ttribe said:

Are you...serious?

Yes, and I'll be the last one laughing in 2045.

 

14 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Anyone heard a rumor about one hour church? Not saying I’m for it, but it seems to be making the rounds. 

I started a thread awhile back asking about this rumor, maybe 6 months ago? I don't think it's a real thing that is being piloted. The closest I've read is someone saying "someone I know knows someone who..."

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This all good historical information but it does still appear that the duty to pass the sacrament was an assignment that was decided on rather than an actual priesthood responsibility. But maybe these assignments were decided on through revelation received by the prophet?

I would tend to agree with you. I think that our experience with the sacrament is not a good measure for earlier periods. At least we abandoned the early communal pitcher ...

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

Young boys were not ordained to any priesthood office until 1877 and there were no Aaronic priesthood quorums till 1908.

 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

While the second half of this is true, the first is not.

The second half is both true and false. True because they weren't called quorums until 1908, and false because they aren't actually quorums.

D&C 107 specifies a number of quorums in the leadership of the Church, from the First Presidency down to the Seventy. They are called quorums because of the requirement of unanimity in their decisions. The term "quorum" is appropriate in these cases because of the definition of the term "quorum." The word "quorum" in English means the minimum number of members of a group necessary to constitute the group at a meeting that is necessary to conduct the business of that group. In the case of the Quorum of the Twelve, for example, that number is 12. And by the constitution of the church there must be unanimity. 

D&C 107:27-29 -> "And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other — A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise — Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men."

So, the decisions of each quorum must be ratified unanimously by the number of the members specified for the group. That is why the group itself is a quorum. 

But when it comes to verses 85 thru 89, where the duties of the presidents over the deacons, teachers, priests, and elders are described, and their maximum sizes are specified (12 deacons, 24 teachers, 48 priests, and 96 elders), the groups are not called "quorums" because they have no decision-making authority, and there is no minimum number of members that must be present to conduct business.

Our calling them "quorums" is a misnomer. But that's strictly speaking. It's the Lord's church. If He wants them called "quorums" (or at least, doesn't object to them being called so), then so be it.

Sorry, I'm being pedantic here. It's a failing, I know.

Edited April 3, 2025 by Stargazer

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, JVW said:

Yes, and I'll be the last one laughing in 2045.

I'll take that bet.

[MustardSeed]

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'll take that bet.

I’m too old to guarantee I’d see that through lol

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm definitely not for it. Sounds completely nuts. 

I’m in primary and we are already down to a 20 min. lesson so not sure how we would cut that down. 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

Yes, and I'll be the last one laughing in 2045.

 

I started a thread awhile back asking about this rumor, maybe 6 months ago? I don't think it's a real thing that is being piloted. The closest I've read is someone saying "someone I know knows someone who..."

Yes, all hearsay. I haven’t heard anyone say they have personally been in the pilot program for this. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/2/2025 at 6:00 AM, Stargazer said:

...........................

What is the point of it? Why is it done? I've been a member for (gets out calculator to be sure) 59 years come the end of July, and I've never ever asked the question.  I truly had never thought of it before! It was just something that was done twice a year. There was a time in my life in the church when it was more a "church vacation," meaning I could take the Sunday off and just laze around. GC talks would come out in the Ensign in a month or so and I could read them at my leisure. Things changed over time, and GC became something to look forward to for the spiritual boost. Although now that we can watch it on the Internet (in our PJs if we want), it's still a bit of a "church vacation." Especially so at the moment, since it's one Sacrament meeting I don't have to help plan and find speakers for! 

The preaching of the Gospel? It's done every Sunday, and with recordings of talks one could hear this every day. There's quite a stockpile of past conferences to draw sermons from -- and I do this anyway, since there are some gems in past talks! Sustaining of leaders? We get that in stake and ward conference. Somewhat abbreviated at the local level, but that could be changed to include them all. 

Exciting changes? New temples? Could be done in print and over the pulpit as announcements any given Sunday.

Well, it's all of the above. I love General Conference, for all of what happens and what we learn. Over the course of my church life it's gone from Boring to Seminal. I'm looking forward to the coming weekend!

Well said.

[Tacenda]

On 4/2/2025 at 10:12 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I am well aware that many participants here have a problem with Elder Bednar.

Not a horrible choice but I feel he's not as humble but I'm sure he is, it's just my perception.

[Frank11]

On 4/2/2025 at 12:48 AM, Calm said:

Is there an issue with Elder Utchdorf I am missing?

He has too much integrity.

[JVW]

50 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

He has too much integrity.

Oh actually, now that I think about it. I think there was a scandal with Elder Uchtdorf when some of his kids or someone took a bunch of his money and donated it into politics and people found out about it and thought that he was donating to politics. It was like a million dollars or something. I also think some people got all butthurt once cause he was wearing a really expensive watch. ... but I'm pretty sure all of the Apostles wear super nice suits and watches and stuff because they're missionaries to kings and high end world government officials.

[The Nehor]

On 4/3/2025 at 9:46 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would tend to agree with you. I think that our experience with the sacrament is not a good measure for earlier periods. At least we abandoned the early communal pitcher ...

Also abandoned the wine.

[Frank11]

56 minutes ago, JVW said:

I think there was a scandal with Elder Uchtdorf when some of his kids or someone took a bunch of his money and donated it into politics and people found out about it and thought that he was donating to politics.

... would not explain to me why Nelson did not bring him back into the first presidency in 2018, since the case mentioned above became known in 2021.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

t was like a million dollars or something.

Are you serious?

If you are going to spread gossip, at least be accurate.  Try under $3000….

Quote

 

The FEC’s website reports 11 donations over a four-and-a-half-month span for a total of $2,086.67 to three candidates, a political action committee and the Democratic National Committee. The Deseret News initially reported an additional two donations for another $200, but an FEC spokesperson advised that all donations listed as made to ActBlue are accounted for in other reported contributions.

The listings show four contributions totaling $1,000 to or earmarked for President Joe Biden’s campaign. The first two of those donations was made through ActBlue on Aug. 23, 2020.

An additional $250 contribution was made on Nov. 15 to the Biden Fight Fund, a joint fundraising committee authorized by Biden for President and the Democratic National Committee. That same day, a $250 donation listed in Elder Uchtdorf’s name went to the DNC and was earmarked for the Biden Fight Fund.

The giving switched gears in December to the U.S. Senate runoff races in Georgia.

On Dec. 19, the donor provided the first of three contributions to Raphael Warnock’s campaign for a total of $378.33. The person also gave $208.34 in two donations to Jon Ossoff.

 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/12/22326401/elder-dieter-uchtdorf-clarifies-family-campaign-donations-during-elections/

[Chum]

I only want two changes. For sufficient sleep to be appended to the Word of Wisdom. For the Church to clarify it's position that corruption is a sin (along with the usual elucidation that follows those sort of declarations). 

Although there are endless hints and nearby remarks that dance all around those things, I don't believe the Church supports either of those notions in a meaningful (impactful) way.

My list used to go up to 3 but I gave up on excommunicating I Am A Child Of God from grown up hymnbooks. 

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Chum said:

I only want two changes. For sufficient sleep to be appended to the Word of Wisdom. For the Church to clarify it's position that corruption is a sin (along with the usual elucidation that follows those sort of declarations). 

Although there are endless hints and nearby remarks that dance all around those things, I don't believe the Church supports either of those notions in a meaningful (impactful) way.

My list used to go up to 3 but I gave up on excommunicating I Am A Child Of God from grown up hymnbooks. 

D&C 88: 124  "retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

D&C 88: 124  "retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."

I do. I always go to bed early in the morning.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

D&C 88: 124  "retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."

Church: Youth activities that end at 9p and then clean up, etc. 

Also Church: Seminary at 6am or earlier. 

I mean, I get your point. The admonition *is* there but routinely ignoring it leads to less resistance by, well, everyone. Particularly leadership but generally everyone. 

Edited April 5, 2025 by Chum

[blackstrap]

Just think, if the Church changes enough we might be able to join up with the RLDS/CoC and a few other splinter groups . 😈

[Chum]

32 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Just think, if the Church changes enough we might be able to join up with the RLDS/CoC and a few other splinter groups . 😈

You could always spin up your own.  We've had visitors here who shared their novel version of Church 2. 

[Chum]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

I'm pretty sure all of the Apostles wear super nice suits and watches and stuff because

It's a system that works. My ponytail kept me out of lots of callings. 

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do. I always go to bed early in the morning.

It's very invigorating to go to bed at 1 or 2 in the morning, and then watch YouTube cat videos for an hour.

But then, I'm retired, so my time is my own.

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, Frank11 said:

He has too much integrity.

Obviously he doesn’t if he’s aligned himself and actively supports and sustains a church and church leaders that don’t have integrity, right?

You can’t actively uphold something bad and be a good person.  If the church is what you think it is, Elder Uchtdorf can’t be any better than the rest. 

[JAHS]

On 4/2/2025 at 5:14 PM, Peacefully said:

Anyone heard a rumor about one hour church? Not saying I’m for it, but it seems to be making the rounds.