Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Priesthood, 1930.” You can view other years here.
Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.
PRIESTHOOD, 1930.
1930: Jan.: Priesthood Conferences–program.
“6. Topic: ‘The Priesthood,’ by a High Priest (20 minutes).
Synopsis: What is Priesthood? Why is it necessary? Emphasize the two-fold meaning of the term, as understood and used by the Latter-day Saints. Priesthood–First, divine authority; Second, the men in whom that authority is vested. As a fundamental reason for a Priesthood–that is, for men bearing this sacred authority, which constitutes them agents of the Almighty for the transaction of sacred business in his name and stead–describe the true God as he has revealed himself, and contrast that revelation with the false notion concerning Deity, set forth in the creeds of men, that He is a being without body, parts or passions. (Church of England Articles of Religion, Presbyterian Confession of Faith, etc.) Point out the fact that since the true God is a personage, an exalted, glorified Man, he cannot be in two places at the same time; cannot be in Heaven and on Earth simultaneously–in person; though he can be and is everywhere present by his Spirit and influence. Hence, when absent in person, he needs a Priesthood to represent him, to do for him what he wishes done and is not present to do for himself.” (“Priesthood Conferences, Season 1930-31 [pamphlet]; xerox)
Jan.: Weekly AP meeting.
“Attention of the stake presidencies and ward bishoprics is called to the fact that arrangements have now been made whereby the weekly ward meetings of the Aaronic Priesthood in all the wards throughout the Church may be held either (a) as at present, on Tuesday evenings in conjunction with the M.I.A., or (b) on Sunday mornings in conjunction with Sunday School, or (c) at 11:30 a.m. Sunday immediately after the Sunday School class exercises.
If the meetings are held on Tuesday evenings, then the Priesthood quorums or classes should occupy about 45 minutes for class work as already outlined. If it is decided to change to Sunday morning jointly with Sunday School, then the plan is that, after the general assembly, and upon separating for class work, the Aaronic Priesthood quorums shall carry on their quorum or chass meeting under the direction of members of the bishopric and the supervisors. This would include about 15 minutes for the activity period as already outlined, and the remainder of the class period for lesson work, with the Sunday School lessons for material. It is intended that the deacons’ and teachers’ quorums, at least, shall meet separately from the girls. If this plan is followed, we would urge that the Priesthood lesson books for 1930 be used as an outside reading course.
If there are not sufficient class rooms for the Aaronic Priesthood quorums to meet separately from the girls, or for any other desirable reason, then the meetings can be held at 11:30 a.m., immediately after the Sunday School class period. Under this plan, the Priesthood members would remain in the class rooms and organize as quorums and proceed with the activity period and with a brief lesson period, summarizing the lessons contained in the Priesthood lesson books for each grade of the Priesthood. In this case it would be very helpful for the securing of effective ward teaching if the bishopric could call all the Priesthood members together with the acting ward teachers, sometime during this period, and consider for a few minutes each week ways and means to promote more thorough teaching in the homes of the Saints. The length of this meeting would be from about 11:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
In each stake the determination as to the best time for these weekly meetings is to be made by the stake presidency, high council and ward bishoprics, keeping in mind as prime considerations, always, the magnifying of the Priesthood, securing the largest possible regular attendance the year round, and the finest training and activity of the Priesthood, as also the most effective ward teaching.” (“Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(3):219, Jan., 1930)
Jan.: AP standards.
“The Presiding Bishopric are very desirous that the following standards be fully met, as far as possible, in all stakes and wards:
(1) Ordinations. Advancement–based on their diligence, boys to be ordained to and in the Priesthood, as follows:
Deacons–12 years (3 year course).
Teachers–15 years (2 year course).
Priests–17 years (3 year course).
Candidates to be individually prepared, under direction of ward supervisors, for at least six months before advancement. Boys to be ordained, if possible, as near their birthdays as possible.
(2) Meeting. Ward Priesthood meetings weekly throughout year, if possible. Lesson outlines for each year to be completed by December 31st, ready to begin following year’s outlines.
(3) Stake Supervision. Committee of High Council with other assistants. Organize somewhat as a stake auxiliary board. Visit all quorums in wards regularly. Make weekly visits, if possible. See that these standards are met. Get monthly reports from all wards. Occasional stake gatherings. Prepare summary of ward reports for stake presidency and Presiding Bishopric.
(4) Ward Supervision. Bishopric, assisted by Committee of Supervisors–qualified men, with one as chairman. They act also as class supervisors. Each member of the bishopric has general charge of one grade of the Priesthood–the bishop as president of the priests’ quorum and each of the counselors in charge of another grade.
(5) Supervisors’ Duties. Act individually as class supervisors in quorums. Hold weekly committee meetings as a board, preferably after Priesthood meeting. Follow up (a) attendance of members; (b) weekly assignments of duties to all members in rotation; (c) prepare monthly reports to stake committee; (d) prepare young men for ordination and advancement; (e) direct social and fraternal activities; and (f) consider general welfare of quorums. Best fitted men in ward to be selected as supervisors. They should be largely relieved of other responsibilities.
(6) Quorum Meetings–Class Work. Each quorum or class to meet separately. Arrange definite order of business. Presidency of quorum in charge (aided by member of bishopric.) Only one roll of all members. . . .” (“Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(3):220, Jan., 1930)
Mar.: AP progress.
“In order to stimulate the work of the Aaronic Priesthood throughout the various wards, stakes and missions, the following letter has been sent out to the authorities of these various divisions of the Church, and is here presented for the information of all who are concerned with the welfare of that Priesthood:
Dear Brethren:
The success of Aaronic Priesthood training and activity depends primarily upon the stake presidencies and ward bishoprics in the various stakes; and upon the mission presidents, missionaries and branch presidencies in the various missions. Where this important work, under the direction of these presiding officers, is placed directly in the hands of competent, energetic, faithful supervisors, the success of the movement is assured. The Presiding Bishopric have outlined general plans for the holding of weekly Priesthood meetings and for the activities and the lessons to be given. Those in charge of the various divisions of the Church have the opportunity to use their initiative in applying these plans in the most effective way for the systematic advancement of all these boys and men who bear these sacred callings.
We would urge that, during the next stake conference in each stake, and during the next district conference in each mission, special consideration be given to the progress of the Aaronic Priesthood in whatever way the stake presidencies and mission presidents feel will be most helpful to the members of the Priesthood, to those in charge thereof and to the parents.
During this great Centennial year we appeal to all presiding officers to have every possible effort put forth:
(a) To provide most energetic, spirited, sympathetic supervision of the details of this great work.
(b) To endeavor to bring every member of the Aaronic Priesthood into active, interested service.
(c) To train all members thoroughly and enthusiastically in the performance of all their respective Priesthood duties; in up-standing personal habits; in the application of Gospel principles to their growth in righteousness and capacity; and in faith and devotion to the Church.
The selection as supervisors of men of faith and energy, who are interested in, and helpful to young men, is bound to result in increased activity and devotion of the Priesthood members. The arranging of interesting meetings, making all members welcome, giving everyone some part in the meeting, assigning every member regular duties and encouraging him in the performance of the same, promoting sociability and fine ideals, all help to develop greater diligence.
Wishing you success in this important effort, and with cordial wishes, we are,
Sincerely your brethren,
The Presiding Bishopric.”
(“Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(5):349, Mar., 1930)
Apr.: Clawson: Centennial view of Priesthood.
“Times without number in the last one hundred years the question has been asked, What, after all, is the precise difference between the Church of Jseus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian denominations, Protestant and Catholic? In other words, is there some one thing that is a characteristic mark of ‘Mormonism,’ and, if so, just what is it?
To the superficial observer, whether within or without the ‘Mormon’ Church, the difference might seem to lie in parts of its ritual, or in its marriage system, or in its compact and effective organization, or in its vast network of proselytism, or in its so-called materialism, or in all of these combined.
But that is not the case. The real difference between ‘Mormonism’ and other Christian bodies is to be found within, not without. For back of any ritualistic peculiarities that may appear, back of any organized effectiveness, back of any apparent self-advertisement and commercialism, back of everything that may show on the surface is an intangible reality.
And that is Priesthood.
Outsiders as well as insiders, if pressed for their opinion, would readily admit the accuracy of this judgment.
Not polygamy, not solidarity, not propaganda, not materialism has been responsible for the opposition that the Church has almost continuously experienced in this age. These at bottom have been merely excuses, not reasons. The real point of attack, whether consciously or unconsciously, has always been Priesthood, the claims of the Saints to direct divine authority.
Moreover, speaking now from the viewpoint of the Saints themselves, not the ‘auxiliaries,’ not the educational system in the Church, not the missionary system, not the various principles and ordinances of the Church, not even the organization of the Church itself is the main thing in their minds. The main thing in their minds is what lies behind all these and vitalizes them and gives them meaning–Priesthood. That is why, in the last analysis, everything in ‘Mormonism’ comes back to Priesthood and acquires significance therefrom.
Priesthood is therefore not only the point of divergence between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all other Christian bodies, but the very quintessence of this religion–the thing without which it could not possibly exist.
Priesthood, with the Saints as with other Christian churches, is authority delegated by God to man by which man acts for Deity in His name in a way that makes any act performed by man under this divine warrant as valid as if it were done by the Lord in person. Only, the ‘Mormons’ lay greater store by the Priesthood than any other Christian body whatsoever.
The theory is very simple.
Man is literally, and not figuratively, a child of God. God is in a very real sense the Father of the spirits of all men. This being the case, it naturally follows, first, that the Lord is very much concerned about our welfare both here and hereafter and, secondly, is both anxious and able to provide a means by which we, His children, may overcome any factors in our environment that do not make for our growth. That means is the Church.
The Church is therefore God-made, not man-made–God-made, because it requires higher wisdom than man possesses. It is the form through which the substance works, the tangible through which the intangible operates, the pattern through which spiritual ideals manifest themselves. In a word, the Church is the incarnation of Christian truth. For as the human spirit expresses itself through the human body, so the Gospel–God’s spell, or power–expresses itself through the Church.
But the Church needs to be conducted by the same wisdom that brought it into existence in the first place. The vehicle requires to be guided so that its precious cargo shall be safe. Hence the Priesthood. Moreover, Priesthood is in the main the channel through which communication between God and man is maintained.
Thus questions as to whether the Church should be ruled by elders or bishops or apostles, whether baptism ought to be by immersion or by sprinkling, whether infants may properly be baptized, whether a priest mayi forgive sins, and a hundred other similar questions of government or principle or ordinance, become matters ultimately for men to decide who hold the Priesthood by undisputed right, not by men who have arrogated this authority unto themselves. Also any alterations made in the Church, either in its form or its substance, are in themselves of small moment. The all important point is, Have they been made by duly accredited representatives of God?
But Priesthood, in the view of the Saints, is a matter that touches more than our present existence. It concerns the entire span of the eternal spirit, whether in its pre-earth life, its life here and now, or its life after this.
Priesthood was known in the unembodied state. Jeremiah, the Bible tells us, was ‘sanctified’ before he was born and ‘ordained’ to be ‘a prophet unto the nations.’ Abraham likewise, as we are informed in a modern translation of an old document, was ‘chosen before he was born’ while he was still ‘in the midst’ of the ‘intelligences that were organized before the world was,’ and he was appointed one of God’s ‘rulers’ that were to be in the earth-life. That is, these two men were endowed with the Priesthood in the spirit-state. Not only these two great prophets, but others as well were ‘set apart’ for specific work to be done after they should be incarnated in the flesh.
And after this life also, first in the intermediate state and then in the resurrection, Priesthood will be as necessary as in our present state. For organization inheres in human association, in all forms of existence. It is a thing of the intelligent spirit, not of the body, and this irrespective of whether the spirit is embodied or not or whether, if embodied, its tabernacle is mortal or immortal. Even in the next life there will be educative processes to be set going and carried on, and this work must be done by those who are properly qualified, both by nature and by credentials. And that means Priesthood.
This importance attaching to Priesthood in the minds of the ‘Mormon’ people it is that led the Prophet Joseph Smith, the founder of the modern Church, into an original and impressive line of conduct in rleation to his pre-destined work in this dispensation.
Once having decided in his own mind to set up a church, he might have assumed the prerogatives of religious leadership, as many others before him had done, without asking himself any questions as to his priesthood. Or, having asked them, he might have imitated the practice of many religious reformers before his time, and sought to trace his authority back through dubious channels to some one else.
But he did not. He broke utterly with both past and present, so far as the churches were concerned. Instead he sought and obtained fresh contacts with God.
His first great revelation is well known to those who are familiar with the rise of ‘Mormonism.’ Likewise the story of how the Book of Mormon was revealed through the ministrations of the Angel Moroni. In the first vision he learned through a personal visitation, that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ were veritable personages, that they were two beings and not one, as was generally taught in his day, and that the heavens were not as a canopy of inpenetrable brass over man’s head. In the second heavenly manifestation he learned of the ancestors of the American Indians, of the history of these peoples, and of the numerous revelations and visions vouchsafed to the Jaredites and the Nephites.
One would imagine that two such glorious manifestations as these would be sufficient warrant to proceed to the organization of a church. But Joseph Smith did not think so, even though he had been told in the earlier vision that the Church would be restored through him. For in neither of these revelations did he receive authority to establish the Church of Christ.
Accordingly, as he tells us, in May, 1829, while he and Oliver Cowdery were praying ‘in the woods’ near Harmony, Pennsylvania, John the Baptist, acting, as he explained, under the direction of the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John, appeared to them. Laying his hands on their heads, he ordained them to the ‘Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.’ Subsequently–in May or June, 1829–the Apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Oliver ‘on the banks of the Susquehanna river’ and ordained them to the apostleship, making them ‘special witnesses’ to the name of Christ and giving them ‘the keys of the kingdom and of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.’
Thus the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon the secure foundation of an authority conferred upon its ‘first elder’ by men who were ordained under the hands of the founder of Christianity himself. And every man now holding any degree of spiritual authority in the ‘Mormon’ Church, if he wished to do so, could trace his Priesthood back directly to that ‘first elder’ in the organization–Joseph Smith.
A distinctive feature of Priesthood among the Latter-day Saints is its democracy.
In the religious history of the world it would appear that the men holding the priesthood in any community were limited to a comparatively small group of carefully selected persons trained to the service. And this is true of Christian as well as of pagan peoples, in modern as in ancient times. It is true of even the Israelites before our Savior’s time.
But Priesthood in the ‘Mormon’ Church is in striking contrast to this. For with us it is very widely distributed. In a total male membership of almost two hundred ninety-five thousand, approximately one hundred fifty thousand hold the Priesthood in one of its grades. Deducting those under twelve years of age, at which time the Priesthood is first conferred, we have a situation where practically the entire male membership of the Church holds the Priesthood. This is altogether without parallel in the long history of religion.
If there is any man in the organization who does not have the Priesthood, it is either because he does not want it or because he does not care to live for it. For every boy is urged to aspire to the office of elder, that being the grade which entitles him to all the rights, privileges, and blessings of Priesthood in general. Nor is there any special qualification or discipline necessary to hold the Priesthood, other than faith, good works, and a desire to ‘magnify’ the calling.
A great social leveler, this ‘Mormon’ idea of Priesthood. It tends to make all men the same height so far as concerns access to spiritual blessings. And it brings about this religious equalization, not by lowering the high, but by raising the lowly. The president of a big business corporation and the man who runs his elevator not only stand on the same plane in their Priesthood meeting, but the hired man may even be a presiding officer in the ‘quorum’ of which his employer is a member. And nothing is thought of it. That this power of Priesthood there could be no greater stimulus to individual achievement and self-respect.
Another striking characteristic of Priesthood among the Latter-day Saints is the method by which it is exercised.
It is commonly believed by non-members of the Church that force, compulsion, coercion, threats, are the means by which government is conducted in ‘Mormon’ communities, and that this element of external control is all the more potent because it is underground. That indeed has too often been the method used by religions in the past, even by churches that bore the name of the lowly Nazarene.
But that has never been the method sanctioned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The founder of ‘Mormonism,’ when asked how he managed to govern such a heterogeneous body as he had gathered in Nauvoo, Illinois, is said to have replied, ‘I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.’ And that this statement was more than an off-hand remark spoken on the spur of the moment, is evident by the policy he laid down very deliberately and included in a volume intended to be for the direction of his people.
‘The rights of the Priesthood,’ he says, ‘are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, amen to the Priesthood, or the authority, of that man.’
That has always been the ideal held by the Church, and if any man has presumed to employ the Priesthood as a means of compulsion, he has deviated from the spirit as well as the letter of this standard requirement. The only element the Church considers legitimate as an instrumentality of religious government is love. For, according to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the same statement quoted above, ‘no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.’
Such then, in brief, is the character of Priesthood, in theory and practice, among the Latter-day Saints.
It is of the very essence of the Church here below. It furnishes the groundwork of revealed religion. It is co-extensive with the eternal spirit of man, and inheres in human associations. It was given anew in modern times to the Prophet Joseph Smith, and not inherited by him in a manner involved in doubts and questionings. And its motivating power is love rather than compulsion.
In the hundred years since the organization of the Church in this dispensation, Priesthood has undoubtedly been the most potent factor in religious education among the Saints. Accessible, as it has been, to every man, it has given him a dignity and a self-respect, and furnished him with an incentive to charcter-building through thought and work, such as could not have come to him in any other way.
It is therefore safe to say that without the Priesthood the ‘Mormonism’ we know today could not possibly persist, and that with it there is a power in the Church of incalculable value making for righteousness here and for salvation and exaltation in the world to come.” (Rudger Clawson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, “Priesthood: The Supreme Religions Differential,” IE 33(6):380-382, Apr., 1930)
Apr.: History of the Seventy.
“The order of the Seventy is doubtless of ancient origin, as we may naturally conclude from the writings of Moses, Ex. 24:1, 9, 11, and Numbers 11:16, 17, 24, 25. These references to the Seventy, however, although very significant, are nevertheless so meager that we find difficulty in determining the nature of their duties or in connecting them with the subsequent organizations of that body, either in the meridian of time or in this latter-day dispensation. This much, however, is certain, that their calling was of high spiritual importance in the work of God during the administration of Moses, for we read in paragraph 25 above referred to, that ‘the Lord came down in a cloud * * * and took of the spirit that was upon him {Moses} and gave it unto the Seventy Elders’ and ‘When it rested upon them they prophesied and did not cease.’
Nor is it at all to be wondered at that subsequent references in the old Testament are lacking, (unless we assume that the institution of the ‘Sanhedrin’ is an outgrowth or continuation of the order of the Seventy, which, to say the least, is purely speculative, and extremely doubtful) for it is made known to us in modern revelation that the Lord in his wrath against the rebellious children of Israel ‘took Moses out of their midst and the Holy {Melchizedek} Priesthood also.’ (Doc. and Cov. 84:24, 25). This, of course, included the Seventy, but the lesser Priesthood continued among the children of Israel until John and the coming of our Lord when again the Church was established on the earth and the Melchizedek Priesthood was again restored, together with the fulness of the everlasting Gospel with all of its gifts and blessings including its pristine authorities. This dispensation is marked by the personal ministry of our Savior among men and we read of his choosing the Twelve to be his special witnesses or Apostles and commanding them to ‘Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.’ (Mark 16:15.) This was a great undertaking for twelve men and what could be more natural than again to call the Seventy to assist them? Their ministry was accompanied by wonderful spiritual manifestations so that ‘even the devils were subject unto them,’ and we are reminded of that other Seventy who were chosen to assist Moses.
Little else is recorded in the Scriptures regarding the Seventy, but this is sufficient to show the nature of their calling and the important part they had in the work of the Lord. How well the Twelve carried out the command to ‘go into all the world and preach toe gospel to every creature’ is attested in holy writ and although not specifically set forth it is only reasonable to suppose that the Seventy were called to assist them in this gigantic undertaking.
Had the Church continued to exist upon the earth through the centuries which followed this Messianic dispensation doubtless there would still be found in its organization the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy, together with the other officers which Christ set in his Church. (Eph. 4:10).
Shortly after the departure of the Apostles grievous wolves made their appearance ‘not sparing the flock,’ as was predicted by the Apostle Paul, (Acts 20:29-30) and the universal apostasy or ‘falling away’ took place as further predicted by him in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (II Thess. 2:3).
During that period when ‘darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people,’ (Isa. 60:2), it is no wonder that these divine appointed officers should be discarded and others substituted. But now, in these last days, the God of Heaven has set up his Church and kingdom and it shall never be destroyed nor be left to other people but it shall stand forever. (Dan. 2.)
On April 6, 1830, in fulfilment of this and many other predictions of the prophets, the Church of Jesus Christ was again ‘set up’ on the earth. The Lord has again come down from heaven and taken of that spirit that was upon Moses and upon Christ and his Apostles and the Seventy and given it to these latter-day Apostles and Seventy and other divinely commissioned officers of his Church, and as of old ‘when it rested upon them they prophesied’ and ‘even the devils were subject unto them.’
The First Quorum of Seventy in this latter-day dispensation was organized by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at a meeting held in Kirtland, Ohio, on February 28, 1835, just two weeks later than the date on which the Twelve Apostles were chosen and ordained, and, as was the case with the Apostles so again with the Seventy, they were chosen from among those who had gone up to Zion with the Prophet in ‘Zion’s Camp,’–men who had proven their integrity and were determined, if needs be, to lay down their lives in redeeming the land of Zion.
The First Quorum, like all other quorums of Seventy, is, when fully organized, composed of seventy members of whom seven are chosen and set apart as presidents. The names of members of the First Quorum including the first seven presidents are given in full in the History of the Church, Vol. II, pages 203-204.
To many this was something both new and strange, unlike all other quorums and organizations where the rule was one president and two counselors; but in the case of the Seventies, there were to be seven presidents, of equal power and authority. Many people have marveled at this while admiring the manner in which Joseph proceeded in the organization of the Church. With what perfect assurance and unhesitating confidence was every move made! He always knew just what to do to complete this organization which is said, even by our enemies, to be the most perfect organization in the world. How was it done? He had a vision in which the Lord showed him his Church in active operation, and, althought the work was necessarily done little by little, yet, when completed, every part found its proper place in one harmonious whole. Nowhere do we find this vision recorded but frequent references to it are made both in the History of the Church and in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is forcefully drawn to our attention in referring to the Seventy in the following passages.
And it is according to the vision showing the order of the Seventy, that they should have seven presidents to preside over them, chosen out of the number of the seventy;
And the seventh president of these presidents is to preside over the six;
And these seven presidents are to choose other seventy besides the first seventy to whom they belong, and are to preside over them;
And also other seventy, until seven times seventy, if the labor in the vineyard of necessity requires it.
And these seventy are to be traveling ministers, unto the Gentiles first and also unto the Jews.
Whereas other officers of the church, who belong not unto the Twelve, neither to the Seventy, are not under the responsibility to travel among all nations, but are to travel as their circumstances shall allow, notwithstanding they may hold as high and responsible offices in the church. (Doc. and Cov. 107:93-98.)
It must not be understood that this passage limits the number of quorums to seven times seventy, for the Prophet, at the time the quorums were being organized, stated that ‘If the first Seventy are all employed and there is a call for more laborers, it will be the duty of the seven presidents of the first Seventy to call and ordain other Seventy, and send them forth to labor in the vineyard, until if needs be, they set apart seven times seventy, and even until there are 144,000 thus set apart for the ministry.’ History of the Church, Vol. II, Page 221.
There has been a strong sentiment against multiplying the number of quorums of Seventy. From the foregoing it would seem there is no real occasion for any such anxiety, for the responsibility placed upon them of preaching the Gospel to every creature will require a mighty force. Think of it! 144,000, more than two thousand quorums if need be can be called unto this service.
Among the early achievements of the First Council of the Seventy, our attention is called to a very notable event in the ‘Seventies Course in Theology,’ First Year Book, page 8, par. 11:
Perhaps the greatest work achieved by the First Council of the Seventies in their organized capacity, was the organization of the Kirtland Camp, and leading it from Kirtland, Ohio, to Adam-ondi-Ahman, Missouri, a distance of 860 miles. The camp numbered 105 families, 529 souls in all. They left the vicinity of Kirtland on the 6th day of July, 1838, and arrived at Adam-ondi-Ahman on the 4th of October, of the same year.’ A full history of the organization of this camp and its journey is to be found in the History of the Church, Vol. III, pp. 87-148.
The Second Quorum of Seventies was organized soon after the First. Regarding the increase of quorums in Nauvoo, I again quote the following from the First Year Book, page 8, paragraph 12:
At the October Conference, 1844, the number of the Seventy was greatly increased. On the third day of the conference, Elder George A. Smith moved that all in the Elders’ quorum under the age of thirty-five should be ordained into the Seventies’, if they are in good standing, and worthy, and will accept it. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Enough members were added to make in all eleven quorums, and forty more were ordained to be part of the twelfth quorum. (See minutes of Conference, Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 695-696.) By the first of January, 1845, the number of quorums had increased to fourteen, and a Seventies’ library was started, which caused the editor of the Times and Seasons to exclaim:
Ten years ago but one Seventy, and now fourteen (quorums of) Seventies, and the foundation for the best library in the world. It looks like old times when they had ‘Kirjath Sapher,’ the City of Books.
Meantime the Seventies had built a large brick hall in Nauvoo, known as the ‘Seventies’ Hall,’ and on the 26th of December, 1844, this building was dedicated with imposing ceremonies extending through an entire week. Most of the members of the Council of the Apostles participated in the dedicatory services. It may be of interest fo rthe Seventies to know that the heroic hymn, ‘The Seer, the Seer, Joseph the Seer,’ by the late President John Taylor, was written for these services though dedicated by the author to President Brigham Young. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 767). The arrangement was made for two quorums to be in attendance at the dedication each day with their wives and children and a number of invited guests. By this time there were fifteen quorums in existence. By the 19th of January, 1846, the number of quorums had increased to thirty. (Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 1096.)
After the arrival of the Saints in Utah and for some time thereafter, the quorums of Seventy, being so badly scattered, were unable to meet in quorum capacity but were meeting in what was known as ‘mass quorums;’ but in 1883, under instructions issued by the First Presidency, then consisting of Presidents John Taylor, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith, the First Council of Seventy effected a reorganization of the quorums by establishing quorum districts throughout all the stakes and wards and receiving all those residing within such districts as members, upon their presenting certificates of good standing both from their original quorum and from the bishops of the wards where they resided. New members were also added by ordination and vacancies in the Councils were filled.
This move resulted in greatly increasing the number of quorums until in 1904 there were some 146 quorums and approximately 10,000 Seventies, including those at large who had not yet joined any of the quorums.
In 1907, by permission from and with the cooperation of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, a notable movement was undertaken by the First Council of the Seventy. A systematic course in theology was inaugurated in all the quorums of the Seventy. Of course various lines of study had previously been conducted in the quorums, with almost as many different plans as there were quorums in the Church, but in this new move a uniform progressive outline was provided covering a period of five years. This new outline was entitled ‘The Seventy’s Course in Theology’ and was issued in five Year Books, each one containing a sufficient number of lessons for the year’s work. These Year Books were written and compiled with great care and extensive research by Elder B. H. Roberts and provided an outline of study which, in our opinion, has never been excelled.
As a result of this move there was a general awakening of interest and enthusiasm among the Seventies; so much so, that in the following year a general committee on outlines was appointed by the Church, no doubt influenced to some extent by the notable success of the Seventies, and ever since (but never prior to this move) regular and uniform courses of study have been provided for all the quorums of the Priesthood.
This move also brought about the ordination of more Seventies, as it was thought prospective missionaries should be brought into these quorums and receive the benefit of this course of study; and furthermore, the First Presidency in their letter of July 6, 1904, in order to strengthen our depleted quorums had previously sanctioned such ordinations and advised that in ‘selecting Elders to be ordained Seventies care should be taken to pick out young men likely to develop within them the qualifications of becoming successful preachers of the Gospel.’ The maximum membership weas reached on Jan. 1, 1923, when the Seventies numbered 12,068. The number of quorums likewise increased until in 1928 when the 224th quorum was organized.
However in 1927 it was thought by the presiding authorities of the Church that this number should be greatly reduced and another move was inaugurated in which the Twelve Apostles, under whose direction the Seventies are called to labor, took an active part. As a result of this move many of the Seventies who had filled one or more missions and had now grown gray in the service but were no longer available for missionary work were transferred by ordination to the High Priests’ quorum, provided, of course, they were found worthy of this promotion in the Priesthood, and at the same time many Elders who were considered worthy and available for missionary service were ordained to the office of Seventy.
Notwithstanding this, however, forty quorums were disorganized so that now in the beginning of this Centennial year, deducting from the maximum number of 224 the number of quorums disorganized we have 184 quorums with a membership on December 31, 1928–the latest available figures–of 9,342. Thus the membership of the Seventies quorum has been reduced below the status of 1904, while the High Priests have increased until they now number 17,033.
In connection with this latest move in which a more active cooperation with the presidents of stakes was earnestly solicited, an extensive program of study and activity was undertaken and the auxiliaries of the Church-Sunday Schools and Mutual Improvement Associations–were brought into requisition. To the former was assigned the duty of conducting the Priesthood classes, outlines of which were to be provided by the general authorities of the Church and in connection with the latter the quorums or parts of quorums were to meet in what is called their Tuesday night ‘Priesthood M.I.A.’ meeting in which reports of all their activities were to be made and assignments for the ensuing week were given. To give a full explanation of this undertaking would require more space that I now have at my disposal. I will therefore only add that it is a well thought out plan to which much study and careful consideration has been given by the general authorities of the Church and particularly by the Council of the Twelve who, under instructions from the First Presidency, sponsored the move.
This plan is now, with some minor modifications and with varying degrees of success, in active operation but nevertheless may still be considered more or less as a ‘noble experiment,’ and is even now under earnest consideration by the leading councils of the Church with the confident expectation that eventually a plan will be evolved wherein the great body of the Priesthood shall qualify for its high responsibility and ‘every man shall learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed in all diligence,’ (Doc. and Cov. 107:90) and as this relates to the Seventy he shall qualify himself through diligent study and right living to be a preacher of the Gospel, ‘a bearer of the glad tidings of great joy’ and ‘an expecial witness for the Lord’ for this is the calling of the Seventy.
In this connection it is interesting to note that all of the First Council of the Seventy have been or are now mission presidents.” (Rulon S. Wells, First Council of Seventy, “In Behalf of the First Council of the Seventies,” “The Seventy,” IE 33(6):403-406, Apr., 1930)
31 May: Service to be quorums’ chief aim.
“If the quorums of the Priesthood are to achieve and maintain the high standard of efficiency that is expected of them, they must keep as their constant aim service to their members and to the church.” (Council of the Twelve, circular letter, 31 May, 1930; in Richard O. Cowan, “The Priesthood-Auxiliary Program, 1928-1938,” BYU Studies 19(1):113, Fall, 1978)
25 Jun.: Procedure for ordaining 70s.
“Men to be ordained Seventies are to be recommended to the First Council of the Seventy by the Stake Presidency on the forms provided for that purpose, after consultation with the Presidents of the local quorum of Seventy. All Elders so recommended should be interviewed by a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles or a member of the First Council of the Seventy before their ordination which must be by a member of one of these Councils. Elders who are approved to be Seventies should be sustained by vote at a Stake Priesthood meeting or Stake quarterly conference before they are ordained.
. . . .
By securing the aid of presidents of stakes in the administration of quorums of Seventy we wish it understood that the presidents of quorums are in no sense to be relieved from the responsibility of presiding over the quorum and its members. We want the presidents of quorums to feel not only at liberty but under obligation to advise the First Council of all matters affecting the status and welfare of the quorum. The Presidents of the quorum will be expected to be in frequent consultation with the stake presidency, and wherever it is deemed by the presidents of the quorum necessary to make changes, to add members, or to take any other action promotive of quorum interest, the presidents of the quorum should seek an interview with the stake presidency, discuss the matter, and cause recommendations to be made to the First Council. Since, however, the quorum council and the item of choosing new Seventies are of such a nature as to warrant the close attention of the stake presidency, we deem it better to have the stake presidency, after consultation with the quorum council, make the initial recommendations to the First Council on these subjects.” (Extract from joint letter of Council of the Twelve and First Council of Seventy, 25 Jun., 1930; LDS Archives, Pq M251.3 B855 195-?; xerox; also x; in Widtsoe, Priesthood and Church Government (1939 edition), pp. 246-247)
Jun.: Advancement of AP youth.
“As the result of several inquiries that have been made recently, it appears that there is no uniform understanding among the officers of the Church as to the proper form concerning the advancement of young men holding the Aaronic Priesthood. Some make advancements by groups and give very little consideration as to the qualifications and preparedness of the young man for advancement.
An excellent course of study has been prepared for the members of the Aaronic Priesthood, and if the young men study the outlines, they will be prepared for advancement. Each boy before being transferred or advanced should pass a satisfactory examination for the purpose of demonstrating that he has become familiar with his duties in the present order of the Priesthood, that he has attended to all duties required of him, has shown an interest in his work which would justify his advancement in the Priesthood. When he is found worthy, after serving the normal term of service and training, he should be invited to attend the next sacramental or fast meeting following his birthday, and there he should be ordained in the presence of the congregation. The usual term for each order of the Priesthood is as follows: In the office of deacon for three years, the office of teacher for two years, the office of priest for three years, and promotion should be based entirely on the faithful performance of his duties. The ordination to any office in the Priesthood carries with it the responsibility to lead an exemplary life.
Prior to the date appointed for promotion, the parents of those selected for advancement should be notified.
The officers of the Primary Association have expressed a desire to arrange the last year’s training of the boy in the Primary Association so that it will prepare the boy in essential matters, especially to impress upon him the importance of the Aaronic Priesthood, its value to him in his life’s training, and responsibility which comes to him when he accepts that Priesthood.
We sincerely hope that the members of the Church and the parents of the boys particularly, as well as the bishoprics and supervisors and others who may be appointed to train the boys will assist in every possible way to prepare them for the office and calling of the Aaronic Priesthood.
The Aaronic Priesthood reports for the month ending February 28, show that less than one-tenth of those who hold the Aaronic Priesthood have up to this date secured the course of study required. It would appear from this showing that many have not grapsed the importance of Priesthood work and the need of taking up this course of preparation at the beginning of the year. May we urge all who are appointed to supervise the work of the Aaronic Priesthood to take steps immediately to have their quorum members shpplied at an early date.
THE PRESIDING BISHOPRIC.”
(The Presiding Bishopric, “Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(8):572, Jun., 1930)
29 Jul.: Priesthood classes Sunday morning.
“Present plans for the studying of the Gospel by members of Priesthood Quorums are designed to meet the convenience of the majority of those interested. This study class period, held independently of the activity meeting either of group or quorum, convenes at an hour during the Sunday School between ten and twelve Sunday morning.
The course of study for the Melchizedek Priesthood is prescribed by the Council of the Twelve and the First Council of Seventy; for the Aaronic Priesthood, by the Council of Twelve and Presiding Bishopric. The printing of lessons, the publishing of books and the distribution of all literature is assigned to the General Sunday School Union Board. Since the same course of study is prescribed for all quorums of the Melchizedek Priesthood, members of these quorums generally throughout the Church meet as groups and not in official quorum capacity, although in some of the largest wards, High Priests, Seventies, and Elders meet in separate and distinct groups. In no case, however, do they meet in an official quorum capacity. There is no objection, therefore, to their wives meeting with them for study purposes, nor is there any objection for men who hold only the Aaronic Priesthood or even non-members of the Church also meeting in this class. . . .
DUTY OF CLASS INSTRUCTOR
The class instructor is expected to follow the prescribed course of study, even though he might have preference for some other line of thought. He should thoroughly prepare each lesson, amplifying the suggestions given in the text and in the ‘Instructor,’ and applying to the class the truths taught in the lesson he has outlined.
The class instructor is subject to all the rules and regulations of Sunday School discipline.
During the class recitation period, he is in full charge, and it is his duty as well as privilege to conduct the class without dictation from any other officer.
If he prove to be inefficient, incompetent, or unorthodox in his teaching, he may be released by the group who appointed him, but he should not be corrected, reprimanded, or humiliated before his class. Should he make a mistake, he should be privately informed of it, and given occasion to make the correction himself.
There are some officers of quorums who seize every opportunity during the class period to find fault with the course of study, or to pick flaws in the method of presentation, much to the discouragement of the instructor and often to the wearying of the members of the class. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but fault-finding and destructive criticism when persisted in become intolerable. Anybody can find seeming flaws in anything produced. Even He who was perfect was condemned most of all. The wise quorum officer will look for virtues in the lesson and in the teacher, and emphasize faults and weaknesses only on occasions when they may be overcome or remedied.
The class period Sunday morning should be an inspiring hour, faith-promoting, and soul-uplifting. To make it such, let there be preparation, cooperation, and mutual helpfulness on the part of group leaders, instructor, and class members.
In the Activity Meeting of the quorum or group, quorum officers or group leaders have full charge. Best results are obtained when this meeting is held independently of the Gospel Doctrine Class.
Hoping that these few suggestions will tend to make clearer the relationship between quorum officers, group leaders, and class instructors, and ever praying for the blessings of the Lord to attend the efforts of all who are laboring in the Church of Christ, we remain
Sincerely your brethren,
THE COUNCIL OF THE TWELVE
By Rudger Clawson, President.”
(Circular Letter, 29 Jul., 1930; in Richard O. Cowan, “Priesthood Programs of the Twentieth Century–Under the direction of Dean Jesse, Melchizedek Priesthood Research Task Committee, March, 1974,” pp. 213-215; see also “Sunday School Departments,” Instructor, 65(8):475, 1 Aug., 1930)
Aug.: Plea for weekly AP meetings.
“In the plan for the training of young men in Priesthood work, through the quorums of the Aaronic Priesthood, the Lord has provided a means of building men unsurpassed by any plan yet devised by man. Yet the Lord’s plan fails if those to whom he entrusts this great work do not perform their duties. This plan provides that there shall be a meeting of Aaronic Priesthood members each week, and that at these meetings all matters pertaining to quorum welfare be considered. Duty assignments should be made and reports on previous assignments received. During the summer months the time for meeting is optional with stake and ward authorities. It may be held on Tuesday night or Sunday morning, either before Sunday School, with Sunday School, or at 11:30, after the regular Sabbath School classes are called to reassemble. Or, if it is thought by the presidency of the stake and high council that some other time is more suitable, it is their duty so to decide. The particular time for holding meetings is not so important; but the fact that meetings should be held and that an effort should be made to have, as far as possible, every Aaronic Priesthood member actively engaged in class work and following the prescribed course, is vital.
First, the responsibility for this rests with the bishopric of the ward; next, upon the Aaronic Priesthood Supervisory Committee; next, with the parents of those upon whom this Priesthood has been conferred. Reports received at this office show that in many of our wards this duty is not looked upon as being one of importance. The class work is carried on more as a sense of duty than as a requirement vital to the growth and development of an active Church missionary force. One stake recently reported that it was impossible to get reports from bishops concerning their Aaronic Priesthood work. They stated the high council committee showed that the main reason for the failure of bishops to make reports was that they preferred to have a blank report than to have the record show the woeful lack of interest in the work which the report undoubtedly would show. To overcome this condition, the presidency of the stake and high council have planned to look over the Aaronic Priesthood activity records during their quarterly visits to the wards, and will, if necessary, make these reports themselves.
Up to the present time, there have been issued only one-third as many Priesthood quorum outlines as should be in the hands of quorum members. Is it not possible that some are neglecting a wonderful opportunity for rendering service which is unequaled in the amount of good that can come when such service is properly performed?
We appeal to presidencies of stakes, high councilors and bishoprics of wards to make a careful study of Aaronic Priesthood work and launch immediately a campaign to have a real missionary work done among the members of these quorums, and to provide class periods and suitable material for these periods to hold the attention of these young men, all of whom should be helped and encouraged to magnify their calling. To accomplish this proper leadership is necessary.” (“Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(10):703, Aug., 1930)
Aug.: Spiritual activity necessary in summer.
“July and August are looked upon as vacation months, a time when we endeavor to get away from the daily routine work of life, where through rest and the changed environment we may recuperate our physical being. This is as it should be, for the body of man should be cared for and preserved as far as possible from those things which interfere with the proper functioning of the organs; but with the spiritual side of man, we find a condition the exact opposite. There is no justification for a let-down in our spiritual development, for through participation in those activities which build up spirituality, we become stronger and the feeling that we should have a rest from them is generally a sign of decay and may lead to a condition of inactivity and perhaps loss of spirituality.
We feel that during the summer months there is just as much need for the Saints to assemble to partake of spiritual food and engage in the activities required of the Priesthood as at any other time. We urge that those called to serve as acting teachers be encouraged to visit the Saints and encourage them to attend to their duties. The Lord requires that we meet together often and acknowledge his hand in all things.” (“Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(10):703, Aug., 1930)
11 Oct.: High Priests to do genealogy/temple work.
“At a stake conference in October 1930 Elder [George F.] Richards recommended that the high priests in the stake be given responsibility of directing the genealogy and temple work of the stake. This he believed would focus attention on the importance of the work of the priesthood. His specific suggestion was adopted in a later generation as a part of the correlation movement of the 1960s and 1970s.” (Mouritsen Diss., p. 154; also George F. Richards diary, 11 Oct., 1930)
Oct.: Clarification of AP program.
“Dear Brethren:
As there appears to be a question among some of those connected with the Aaronic Priesthood regarding this important work, we are presenting some instructions and suggestions herewith, with the request that they be imparted to all those engaged in the progress of the Aaronic Priesthood in order to be clearly understood.
1. It is very desirable that ward Priesthood meetings should be held every week throughout the entire year as far as practicable. This naturally entails the determination by the stake presidency and ward bishoprics as to the best time for holding the ward Priesthood meetings in order to secure the best attendance and activity of the Priesthood.
2. The Aaronic Priesthood plan and lesson work is laid out for the whole year from January 1st to December 31st. Therefore, the lesson books that were issued at the beginning of this year are to be used throughout this year until the close, when new lesson books will be provided for next year. As far as possible, all deacons, teachers and priests should have a copy of their own lesson book. They are available at the Presiding Bishop’s Office at a cost of 10c each. Where Priesthood classes have not been held during this past summer the lesson outlines will have to be shortened somewhat and more ground covered each week during the remainder of this year in order to start out with a new course on January 1st.
3. The time for holding the weekly ward Priesthood meetings is left with the stake presidency and ward bishoprics to determine the hour best suited to secure the largest attendance and interest of all Priesthood members. This time may be either Sunday morning before Sunday School, in Sunday School, immediately after Sunday School, or on Tuesday evenings. The hour selected should be such that meetings can be held satisfactorily at the same time throughout the summer also. If the Priesthood quorum or class meetings are held during the Sunday School period, the different quorums should meet as such, independently of the girls, and carry out the program as explained in the front part of the text books, with the exception that in such case the Sunday School lessons may be used instead of the Priesthood lessons. But, in this event, the Priesthood lessons should be used as an outside reading course, and credit given as an assignment for all who read each lesson. If the Priesthood meeting is held at any other time, the Priesthood lessons should be followed as indicated in the lesson books.
4. It is advantageous to hold a regular weekly Priesthood meeting in each ward, consisting of a general assembly, and then separate for quorum or class work, each quorum or class meeting independently with the officers conducting the exercises, in order to stimulate greater results in effective ward teaching and to promote stronger Priesthood responsibility and quorum activity.
5. The success of Aaronic Priesthood work is entirely dependent upon whole-hearted, sympathetic supervision. If the bishopric will show the proper interest, and also select and encourage the right kind of men for supervisors, the Priesthood members will give their support by showing continually greater interest and activity. The responsibility for this work rests upon the presiding officers of each stake and ward.
We wish to call your attention to the Aaronic Priesthood convention to be held in connection with General Conference on Friday afternoon, October 3rd at 4:15 p.m. in the Assembly Hall. It is greatly desired that representatives of all stakes and wards be in attendance. If you have any questions regarding any items of Aaronic Priesthood work we shall be glad to have you wither write us or else present such questions at that meeting.
Wishing you continued success in this important work, we are, with cordial wishes.
Sincerely your brethren,
THE PRESIDING BISHOPRIC,
Sylvester Q. Cannon.”
(The Presiding Bishopric, “Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(12):816, Oct., 1930)
Oct.: Older inactive men bearing the AP.
“The question is asked, ‘What shall be done with such men?’ In answering this question we may probably ask another: ‘What can be done if they are indifferent but are not doing anything in opposition to the Church or transgressing any commandments severely affecting their standing?’ The only thing that can be done is to seek in every way possible to get them interested in the performance of their duties. It is not proper to disfellowship them for indifference.
If they can be drawn to meeting they should be appointed to meet with the elders if they are over twenty-one years of age. They should be made welcome by the quorum presidency. Their names could be listed on the quorum rolls separately from the members so that they will feel at least that they are considered to be properly in attendance at the elders’ meeting. The Aaronic Priesthood quorum to which they belong should give them credit for attendance, even though they meet with the elders. The bishopric and the Aaronic Priesthood quorum supervisors should be particularly helpful to them in making them welcome and getting them to take part in the activities and duty assignments as far as justifiable. If they become active and faithful they should be recommended for ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood.
In some wards considerable success has attended the efforts of the bishoprics and supervisors in their endeavors to get older men bearing the Aaronic Priesthood to attend meeting and to take part. Of course this condition should be avoided as far as the future is concerned, by whole-hearted, enthusiastic supervision of the Aaronic Priesthood and getting every member to attend regularly and take part in the performance of duty. If this is now given proper attention, generally, the present generation will develop into faithful, active Priesthood members. This result is being actually achieved in some wards through the means already mentioned.
While it is true that inactivity of members reduces the percentage and reflects unfavorably on the reports of the Aaronic Priesthood, the fact is that percentages are not the most important thing to consider and every possible effort should be made to save and bring into activity every member.” (“Priesthood Quorums,” IE 33(12):817, Oct., 1930)
4 Dec.: Stake presidency reorganizing bishopric.
“In 1930 another decision was made that helped shift some responsibility from the general authorities to the stakes. Elder [George F.] Richards had been assigned to visit the Star Valley Stake conference in Wyoming in the dead of winter. When President Heber J. Grant learned of the assignment he decided that Elder Richards should not have to make such a difficult trip in severe winter cold. Since the pressing need of the apostolic visit was to install a new bishopric, the First Presidency decided to authorize the stake presidency to conduct the business. This presaged major administrative changes in succeeding years which gave more and more authority to the stakes. As the stakes of the Church grew in number, this policy would become increasingly important and needful.” (Mouritsen Diss., pp. 153-154; also George F. Richards diary, 4 Dec., 1930)
31 Dec.: Scheduling of weekly AP meetings.
“December 31, 1930.
To Stake Presidencies, Ward Bishoprics, and all engaged in Aaronic Priesthood Work:
Dear Brethren:
Permission was authorized some time ago, as you know, to hold the weekly ward Priesthood meetings at any time each week, to be determined by the stake presidency and ward bishoprics, that will be most convenient in your stake for the largest number of Priesthood members, in order to secure the best attendance and the greatest activity.
With this opportunity, it would appear that every condition is now favorable to marked improvement this next year in the Aaronic Priesthood work.” (Presiding Bishopric, “Priesthood Quorums,” IE 34(4):226, Feb., 1931)