Wheat & Tares welcomes guest poster Bill Reel once more for a discussion on “Men To Boys”, a discussion of how the Doctrine of Priesthood adapted and changed over time.
Mormon Discussion Podcast disusses William Hartley’s article “From Men to Boys“.
This episode tries to counter our assumptions of how Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood where developed and actually explains what really happened showing us once again that things are more complex then we thought.
– Once we see that Priesthood being given to 12-18 year olds is a modern adaptation in Mormonism, does it change whether D&C section 20 truly applies to them in the same way as it did to adults who held the aaronic Priesthood in early church history?
– If this can change as it did, what is unchangeable?
– The more we examine the Church’s history the more some people find it to be a church that has changed naturally based on needs and less attributed to dramtic revelations. What should we make of this? Does this simply make our expectations more realistic or is this an area where faith finds itself on a slippery slope?
This episode is found HERE
Bill Reel is the host of Mormon Discussion Podcast. The podcast tries to deal with the tough issues forthrightly while “leading with faith”.
Wheat & Tares 
Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little…
Of course adaptations occur over time — it is wholly unreasonable to criticize the church for adaptations, as if the expectation was that EVERYTHING, every not and every tittle, be established on the first day of the church — the restoration is still underway, after all.
It doesn’t matter to me whether giving priesthood office to adolescent young men was directed by the Lord or was proposed by the president of the church — after all, the president of the church is the presiding high priest, and it would be within his authority. D&C 112:20 applies.
There is no reason for faith to be on a slippery slope for something as minor as this. After all, some adolescent young men were ordained to priesthood offices in Joseph Smith’s days — it was Brigham Young who formalized the practice, and Joseph F. SMITH who further adapted it.
…every jot… darned auto-correct
I’ve very much enjoyed Hartley’s essays on the development of the priesthood structures since the restoration, and also enjoyed this discussion.
ji, have you read the essay/essays, listened to the podcast? You seen to be anticipating criticism, but that wasn’t my experience.
Hedgehog, Thank you for your response. I don’t feel my podcast is critical though I do try to approach things a little edgy so as to help people see the nuance and complexity. I have yet to hear someone blame my podcast for a loss of faith though I have gotten many messages of enduring or reignited faith due to the podcast.
Yes, I must confess that the skepticism of Bill’s podcasts by “believers” is quite quite surprising to me. It is misplaced cynicism and comes from lack of knowledge of Bill’s podcasts, not actual content. I think Bill does a good job of promoting faithful answers to critical questions.
The same Savior that said “the Sabbath day for man, and NOT man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27) would of course allow changes in Priesthood practices and administration to suit the needs of the Church, including its young male members, especially to square up with the extant culture. The Lord is apparently not a micromanger.
I agree that these changes should not affect our faith, but simply they are a good issue to understand how changes occur versus how we think they occur.