D&C 20:53-59 says,
53 The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;
54 And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;
55 And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty.
56 And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—
57 And is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires.
58 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;
59 They are, however, to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.
That was all fine and dandy when teachers were adults. Soon after the turn of the 20th century, the office of Teacher was relegated to 14 year old young men as a way to activate male youth who were falling away from the church in droves. In fact, the entire Aaronic Priesthood was relegated to all young men, rather than adult men. Nobody expects teens or pre-teens to “warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.” In fact, most young men are pretty intimidated when reading verse 59 in particular.
In the Community of Christ, if a person is called to teach Gospel Doctrine, whether male or female, they are ordained to the office of Teacher. That makes perfect sense. Instead, our “teachers” main responsibility is to prepare the sacrament (which isn’t mentioned at all in D&C 20.) Is it time to rename Teacher to something else to better indicate what they do, or would you prefer they keep the name even though they have nothing to do with teaching? Have you ever seen a Teacher ever “take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest?” Is this scripture simply out of date?
Wheat & Tares 
I understand the history, but the title still fits — a young man begins his home teaching service when he becomes a teacher.
The church strains itself trying to mold the current, evolved practice youthful Aaronic Priesthood into scripture. A more natural approach is to mold policy around scripture. Unfortunately the Aaronic priesthood was never well defined in scripture and the church has had a difficult time trying to find jobs for teacher/deacons, or people for those offices.
Deacons and Teachers used to be adult positions (as well as Ward Teachers–predecessors to Home Teachers). With participation of temple ceremonies being a sign of adulthood, it became difficult to find mature, unendowed men to fulfill Aaronic Priesthood duties like Teacher. In the early 20th century, adult Melchizedek Priesthood holders acted in the office of Teacher and did the Teacher duties specified in the D&C. This adaptation adheres to scripture better than teenage teachers. However, I don’t think our current practice is wrong but the practice does strain the original scripture.
As Jason says, modern practices “strain the original scripture.” But I like the aspirational nature of these callings for young boys. Aaronic priesthood teenagers are continually told that they can have the ministering of angels and such things, based on scriptures. While they may not be mature enough to do much more than mumble through sacrament prayers, it is quite remarkable that by the time they are 18, they are off on a mission, proclaiming the gospel with boldness. That would not be happening if they had not been prepared with a strong sense of their potential and duty.
The whole aaronic priesthood being moved to the youth is an interesting bit of history. It does seemed to have worked to a large extent in keeping young men engaged.
But the titles do need to be revisited. And while we are at it can we change the VERY outdated MIA maids? What girl wants to be a “maid”? Most would be offended if they actually said it “MIA maids”!
I don’t know what the boys are like in your wards, but the fourteen and especially the fifteen year old boys in my ward are humble, look out for their younger siblings, and contribute to the classes and quorums. They are also shy and awkward, but I support calling them teachers. I learn from them every week.
MiaMaids OTOH needs to change.
I’m with Star. As a counsellor in the young men’s presidency in my ward I am assigned to the teacher’s quorum. Each week it is a struggle between squirrel like energy, short attention spans, electronic devices, and learning to live up to a calling that they don’t fully undrerstand. I.e. They are learning how to fulfill a calling. Now I ask, have you ever seen an adult called to a calling that they aren’t fully prepared for? (Perhaps you have experienced this yourself, where the Lord magnifies your efforts despite your own weaknesses. I know I see that happen to me all the time). There are very few perfect Bishops, Stake Presidents, General Authorities, etc. At least the ones I have met admit their own falling short. But when that magic comes where the adult leaders shut up and let, invite, and encourage the young men teach each other in their own words, it is more powerful than what I can say. I just read President Eyring’s talk of how from last conference where he talks about being a priest and having his bishop drag him out teaching when he had two much more experienced counsellors who could have done a better job. There is a pattern in the gospel that the Lord qualifies those He calls. I see that most the young men are willing, but they lack the experience to know how. They also are often written off by their leaders if not their parents. Often they aren’t required to do anything but sit and listen. On the other hand a few months ago, an investigator came to church and the young men blew their leaders minds as they testified of Joseph Smith’s first vision to the young man. They taught hi the plan of salvation. No they didn’t have the perfect little cut out visual aids and didn’t use all the terms perfectly, but the spirit still testified it was true. I won’t go in to all the little ways they help each other try to live the gospel, like reminders of the Lords standards. No doubt some of our young men have learned to be cutting and cruel from home or the world around them, but in general Teacher is a great name for them.
Is there a good write-up somewhere of the transition to the Aaronic Priesthood becoming primarily a young men’s program? I’d be interested in knowing some of the history behind that.
As far as using the title “teacher,” I think it is still justified because teachers begin home teaching, it’s one of their primary tasks. I do think that it would make sense for the church to update the D&C, as much of the original structure has changed to meet new circumstances. Now they just make the changes in the handbook, but I think the church body would benefit from seeing the changes and having a chance to vote on them.
Joel,
digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol22/iss1/1
“From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996”
The change from adults to boys primarily came about during the progressive era. It appears it was based on needs not revelation. I support a change to mirror what is actually going on in the church today but it will never happen. The church as an institution is resistant to change.
All I know is that the first time I lived outside of Utah I had a very difficult time trying explaining to a coworker why I was calling 19-year-old boys “elders.” I’ve since taken a less literal take on titles.
Titles are sometimes necessary in organizations but not the emphasis or important focus. I prefer less title focus and robe wearing and more humble teaching on what matters, like ways to serve and learn. So it doesn’t bug me my son is a Priest at his age. My 2nd son will be a teacher soon. He views it like a deacon…doesn’t really know what the term means, just knows he is going to another class and quorum. They might as well call it the evangelist quorum…wouldn’t change much or give more meaning, just a term, like Mia Maids.
My sons actually do some teaching. I think it is part of Duty to God requirements. But I think trying to tie it back to scripture or Christ’s original church is just about adults trying to put meaning behind things to inspire. It won’t literally make sense no matter what the term is.
I mean, keys to “ministering of angels” for these high schoolers?? Not likely. Unless angels like playing dodge ball on Wed night.
While I am not opposed to changing the title of Teacher, it is never going to happen and if it did the new name would likely be lame (CTR, Beehives, Mia Maids, MN and Gleaners, 70s/Seventies). 😉
But this brings to mind debates I had with bishops who when balking at me for insisting my Deacon sons should be assigned as HT companions to me (in the late 1980s) would quote D&C 20–completely ignorant of the context in which it was given–to justify his position that they had to be Teachers because the scriptures say so.
Since then I think the CHI has been updated to say that Deacons are too young to go HT with anyone except their fathers.
Really enjoyed the comments and original post. Thanks everyone.
“I mean, keys to “ministering of angels” for these high schoolers?? Not likely. Unless angels like playing dodge ball on Wed night.”
I think this comment should be nominated as best/funniest comment of the year. Ziff, are you watching?
When my son turned 12, I was hoping to get him assigned as my HT partner. Bishop said he had to wait until 14, but I have taken him in a pinch. When I was 14, I certainly didn’t view home teaching as an important assignment of a Teacher, but rather just tagging along with my dad or another high priest. My main duty was to set up the sacrament table each week and help with fast offerings each month. I never felt responsible for home teaching at all.
At age 18, I was called into the Elder’s Quorum presidency and I remember they told me I was supposed to help the elders become better home teachers. I was petrified! I hardly knew what I was doing at 18, let alone 14! I never taught a home teaching lesson, or lesson of any kind as a teen (until I was 18, and they assigned a 17 year old Priest partner–argh, I’m supposed to be in charge?????)
I must say, most people outside Utah probably find all the titles like Elder, Priest, Teacher, Deacon, etc. amusing…. makes the church sound like Scouts or maybe like ranks with colored belts in karate class.
Growing up, various men and women (never children) in the church had *roles* as Deacon or Elder, but nobody ever called them “Elder” as a title. They were Mr., Mrs., Miss, etc. Teaching Sunday school or watching kids in the nursery was also a role, with no special title.
As I remember, nobody was ever “called”. Being “called” by God to be a Sunday school teacher or an Elder would sound like it was taking things much too seriously to non-Mormons. People just pitched in where needed. Being a preacher or priest was considered a “calling” but it came directly from the Lord to the individual, not from another person.
Thanks for the pointer, MH!