Thursday, July 12, 2018

The Requirements of Deacons

Question: “According to 1 Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 12-13, it refers to deacons as husbands of one wife, etc. Why is the office of a deacon in the Church today held by very young boys?”

Answer: It was the judgement of Paul that a deacon in that day should be a married man. That does not apply to our day. Conditions were different in the days of Paul. In that day a minister was not considered qualified to take part in the ministry until he was thirty years of age. Under those conditions deacons, teachers, and priests were mature men. This is not the requirement today. There are in all kinds of churches today ministers who are under that age, and there is no requirement in the Church in this dispensation that a person must be a matured man before he can take part in the ministry or hold the priesthood. Nor was it the rule in very ancient times, for we learn that Noah was only ten years of age when he was given the priesthood under the hands of Methuselah [footnote reference to D&C 107:52]. John the Baptist was ordained when only eight days old when he was ordained by an angel, “. . . to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people . . . ,” [footnote reference to D&C 84:28] but John did not enter this ministry until shortly before the coming of Christ to be baptized and enter his ministry. John was a few months older than our Savior.

So you see there is nothing wrong, nothing out of order, in what we are doing, for it is by revelation from the Lord.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol 1, Chapter 32.

Let’s unpack this teaching. First, Smith says it was “the judgement of Paul” but Paul was an apostle and what he taught was from Christ (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:11-12). 

Smith claims that this teaching was for Paul’s day and does not apply to our day, but that is just his assertion with no Biblical backing. His whole claim about qualifications for ministry in those days has no reference, but even if his claim is true that doesn’t negate the FACT that deacons are to be mature men, and no one in any Christian church of which I am aware would ever use young boys as deacons (and in the Christian church there is no such thing as “priests,” let alone the fraudulent nature of the LDS priesthood).

Nowhere in REAL Scripture (i.e. the Bible) do we find Noah ordained as a priest by Methuselah (especially since the priesthood of God did not exist). Nor could John the Baptist have ever been ordained a priest by an angel because nowhere in Scripture are we told angels have such authority, and nowhere in Scripture will you find a priest who isn’t a mature adult. The Doctrine & Covenants are all false claims of revelation from God, which is the only way the cult of the LDS can come up with such bizarre teachings.

The role of a Deacon in the Church is very specific; they are seen as “ministers of mercy” in Acts 6: 1-6. They were to be men “full of the Spirit and wisdom.” Deacons may be seen as support units for the Elders. 1 Timothy 3 explains the qualifications for being a Deacon, and these qualifications can not be met by a young boy.

So-called revelations from the Lord to Joseph Smith on this topic are false.


Anonymous said...

The problem here is that you are using lost, corrupted biblical texts to test the divine.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


The real problem here is that you listen to the lies of the LDS. The texts were never lost and never corrupted. Joseph Smith is the one who corrupted them in his "Inspired Version" as well as his teachings in general.

Your "divine" is a fallible man who sinned and then earned his way to godhood -- totally unbiblical nonsense.

Now, if you really want to post comments, don't hide behind anonymity and actually engage the argument I make.