From Seventy to Elder

We have a brother who was at one point ordained a 70, way back when this was a local thing. He is not currently a high priest, and has never been ordained as such -- he is still a 70.

I've been asked to change his priesthood office to "Elder".

I haven't been over to the Church to try this yet, but how exactly will this work? My undestanding that yes, the local 70s quorums went away, so he should be assigned to either the HP or EQ quorums (I think he's assigned to HP today), but actually downgrading his priesthood office from Seventy to Elder?

Is that kosher? Or even possible?

Personally I don't think it is kosher.

Was this request made by the bishop? stake president? area seventy? Why does he need to be "downgraded?" What purpose will it serve? What is so wrong about him remaining a seventy assigned to the elders quorum? I just can't imagine any substantive rationale for the "downgrade" request.

Stake Seventies Quorums Discontinued,” Ensign, Nov. 1986, 97–98
In harmony with the needs of the growth of the Church across the world, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles have given prayerful consideration to the role of stake seventies quorums in the Church and have determined that the seventies quorums in the stakes of the Church are to be discontinued. The brethren serving as seventies in these quorums will now be members of the elders quorum in their ward. Stake presidents, in an orderly fashion, will determine who among such brethren may be ordained to the office of high priest.

This announcement says nothing about canceling these individual's ordinations as part of returning them to the elders quorum.

The benefit of "downgrading" is suspicious as it does not seem to serve any purpose or have any benefit beyond a cosmetic one. I would call CHQ to find out how to do this "downgrade" passing along the reason for "why" this must be done. I bet they will ask you to have the bishop or stake president call them instead.

It could very well be that I've drastically misinterpreted the request; it was conveyed by a third party in an email and I'm not in a position today to validate/clarify it. Just wondering if anyone might have heard of a similar request. The entire request was "change XYZ's priesthood ordination from 'Seventy' to 'Elder'.

Will follow up with CHQ.

98% of this calling is routine. It's the 2% that leaves me wishing for really good documentation...

I found that MLS easily lets you remove an ordination. Basically, you click "remove".

In this particular case, the original ordination, performed years ago, never took place (hence the reason for the request to have it removed).

geek wrote:In this particular case, the original ordination, performed years ago, never took place (hence the reason for the request to have it removed).

Well, this is a new one for me. We have trouble enough getting Melchizedek Priesthood ordinations onto the membership records. Never had to remove one.

I would verify that the seventy ordination never occurred. He should have already been an elder, so that ordination would remain on the membership record.

But, just because the quorums of seventy were discontinued in stakes in 1986 did not invalidate any of the ordinations to the office of seventy done before that time.

lajackson wrote:Well, this is a new one for me.

Me too, but who's to say that someone along the line that someone didn't hit the wrong button and updated the wrong membership record. I'm sure it's not common but I'd be amazed if it never happened.

Dont forget this wasn't a button stroke that would have caused this ordination. it would have been a hand typed form that would have been mailed to salt lake and then mailed back. it tooklonger but had fewer errors.

1historian wrote:Dont forget this wasn't a button stroke that would have caused this ordination. it would have been a hand typed form that would have been mailed to salt lake and then mailed back. it tooklonger but had fewer errors.

I'll take your word for it since I've never processed one, but at some point it gets entered into the computer. I can't see how human error can possibly be eliminated. Reduced yes, but eliminated is really hard to do.

I am Seventy and its my understanding that we are to remain Seventies until ordained as HP by either a Bishop selection or by a calling requiring the ordination.

kmalone wrote:I am Seventy and its my understanding that we are to remain Seventies until ordained as HP by either a Bishop selection or by a calling requiring the ordination.

This is the current policy, except that it is the stake president, not the bishop, who approves the ordination. A bishop might suggest to the stake president that the ordination be considered, but the stake president decides unless, as you said, the brother is being called to a position requiring high priest ordination.

In any event, we all hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, and at that point all of the blessings of the gospel, including exaltation, become possible through faithfulness.

lajackson wrote:This is the current policy, except that it is the stake president, not the bishop, who approves the ordination. A bishop might suggest to the stake president that the ordination be considered, but the stake president decides unless, as you said, the brother is being called to a position requiring high priest ordination.

In any event, we all hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, and at that point all of the blessings of the gospel, including exaltation, become possible through faithfulness.

You are right, my error should have stated Stake President.

These brethren are correct. If this person has the priesthood office of Seventy, then he will remain a Seventy. You never "downgrade" a person's priesthood office. I was a Seventy when the quorums on the local level were done away with. I was over forty, so I met with the High Priests for a couple of years until the stake president authorized my ordination to High Priest.

Now, if the ordination was recorded in error and he never really was a Seventy, that's a different matter. But you would have a real problem proving that.

I'd leave it the way it is.

I have never heard of this type of request being issued by any leader, that has the authority to do so.

We also have a duty to sometime question stupid decisions, and ask questions of why. As clerks we
have been called to our positions by the Stake Presidency, and if some goes amiss we have the
right to talk to the Stake about it.

I suggest to talk to the Stake Clerk about this issue also.