Part 2: What Makes an Elder an Elder?
God commands us to seek answers to our questions and asks only that we seek ‘with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ.’
– Moroni 10:4
Introduction: A Question of Words and Meanings
Have you ever paused to wonder why eighteen-year-old Latter-day Saint missionaries bear the title “Elder”? The question is not meant as criticism—these young men often demonstrate remarkable dedication, leaving home, family, and familiar surroundings to share their faith in distant places. Their commitment to service, often at high personal cost, deserves genuine respect. Yet the terminology itself invites reflection, for it represents something genuinely unusual in the broader landscape of Christian tradition.
When visitors to Salt Lake City, or neighbors in any community with an LDS presence, encounter fresh-faced teenagers introducing themselves as “Elder Johnson” or “Elder Smith,” a natural cognitive dissonance emerges. In virtually every other Christian tradition—Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Anglican—the word “elder” carries connotations of age, wisdom, and tested spiritual maturity developed over decades. What might this linguistic and theological departure reveal about differing understandings of spiritual authority itself?
This essay does not aim to mock or dismiss. Rather, it invites thoughtful examination of how words carry meaning across traditions, how spiritual authority has been understood historically, and what these differences might suggest about the nature of the church itself. The goal is understanding, not ammunition for argument.
The Biblical Framework: What Did “Elder” Mean to the Apostles?
The Greek word presbyteros—from which we derive both “presbyter” and “Presbyterian”—appears throughout the New Testament with remarkably consistent meaning. It literally means “older man,” but its ecclesiastical usage carried far more weight than mere chronology. When Paul and the other apostles spoke of presbyteroi in the churches, they meant something specific: seasoned believers whose lives demonstrated the fruit of sustained spiritual formation.
Consider the qualifications Paul outlines in his first letter to Timothy, written to guide the organization of the church at Ephesus. The overseer—used interchangeably with “elder” in New Testament usage, as Acts 20:17-28 demonstrates—“must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-3, NIV). This list describes character formed over time through the crucible of life experience.
Most significantly for our inquiry, Paul explicitly states that the elder “must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil” (1 Timothy 3:6). The Greek word translated “recent convert” is neophutos—literally, “newly planted.” The agricultural metaphor is deliberate: a newly planted seedling, however promising, lacks the root system to withstand storms. Spiritual leadership, Paul insists, requires developed roots.
The parallel passage in Titus expands this portrait. The elder’s “children must be believers, not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination” (Titus 1:6). This presupposes not merely marriage but years of family life—children grown old enough for their character to be observed and assessed. One cannot demonstrate faithful family leadership without actually having led a family over time.
A philosophical question emerges here: Can spiritual maturity be conferred, or must it be cultivated? The biblical framework suggests the latter. The qualifications for eldership are not credentials to be earned, but character traits to be developed—and development requires the one resource that cannot be accelerated: time.
The Historical Witness: How the Early Church Understood Formation
The catechumenate—the formal period of instruction and testing before baptism—provides a window into how seriously the ancient church regarded the development of spiritual formation, even if its framework conflated preparation for baptism with preparation for mature discipleship.
While this practice does not align with the orthodox Christian view of believers’ baptism—which emphasizes faith in Christ as the sole prerequisite for the ordinance—the early church’s catechumenate nevertheless highlights an important emphasis on developing a solid foundation for spiritual maturity.
Hippolytus of Rome, writing around 215 AD in the Apostolic Tradition, describes a catechumenate lasting three years before baptism. “Let catechumens hear the Word for three years,” he instructs. This involved a comprehensive evaluation of whether the candidate’s life demonstrated genuine transformation. Sponsors were required to testify regarding the catechumen’s moral progress, charitable works, and rejection of pagan practices.
Whatever we may conclude about their baptismal theology, the early church’s underlying concern remains instructive: they recognized that authentic Christian maturity requires time, intentional formation, and observable character change. The path from new convert to mature Christian to elder represented years—often decades—of growth in grace. Augustine, Ambrose, and Chrysostom were all baptized only in adulthood, after extended periods of spiritual preparation—a pattern that, while reflecting their era’s particular practices, nonetheless illustrates the church’s historic expectation that leadership emerges from demonstrated spiritual depth rather than mere enthusiasm or natural ability.
This historical pattern continued through the Reformation and beyond. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, the various branches of Christianity have maintained the principle that spiritual leadership requires spiritual maturity, and spiritual maturity requires time. The terminology varied—priest, pastor, minister, elder—but the underlying assumption remained consistent: those who would teach must first have been taught, and those who would guide must first have walked the path themselves.
The Latter-day Saint Framework: A Different Ecclesiology
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understands “elder” quite differently. According to official LDS teaching, “Elder” is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood to which worthy male members may be ordained beginning at age eighteen. The 2013 First Presidency letter establishing this age threshold coincided with the lowering of missionary service age, creating a streamlined path from high school graduation to ordained elder to missionary.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains: “‘Elder’ is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to which worthy male members may be ordained at the age of eighteen or older. The name elder is also used as a general title for all bearers of that priesthood.” This represents a fundamental redefinition: rather than describing mature character, “elder” becomes an institutional designation conferred through ordination.
This is not an accidental linguistic quirk but flows directly from LDS theology regarding priesthood restoration—a theology that stands in stark contrast to the biblical model. According to LDS teaching, Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood. This priesthood, in LDS understanding, carries inherent authority that is transmitted through proper ordination rather than developed through spiritual maturation.
The philosophical assumption here doesn’t merely differ from historic Christianity—it inverts the biblical pattern entirely. Scripture consistently presents spiritual authority as emerging from demonstrated character, tested wisdom, and mature faith. The LDS model, by contrast, locates authority in the mechanism of ordination itself. If spiritual authority flows from ritual transmission rather than Spirit-wrought maturation, then age, experience, and proven character become functionally irrelevant. A properly ordained eighteen-year-old possesses the same priesthood authority as a seventy-year-old patriarch. The power lies in the office, not the officer.
This represents a fundamental departure from how the New Testament church understood leadership. Paul did not instruct Timothy to verify that elder candidates had received proper ordination chains; he commanded him to evaluate their character, their households, and their reputations. The biblical question was never “who laid hands on you?” but rather “what manner of person have you become?”
Questions Worth Pondering
Can Authority Be Separated from Maturity?
This question lies at the heart of the matter. In biblical and historic Christian understanding, the qualifications for eldership—self-control, hospitality, ability to teach, tested reputation, proven family leadership—are not arbitrary hurdles but descriptions of what spiritual authority actually is. The elder’s authority derives not from external conferral but from an internal character that the community recognizes and submits to.
The LDS model separates these elements. Priesthood authority becomes a discrete entity that can be transmitted, independent of the character development that historic Christianity understood as constitutive of that authority. Is this a theological innovation or a recovery of something lost? The answer depends on prior commitments about how God works in human formation.
What Does the Practice Reveal About Ecclesiology?
Different theologies produce different practices. The LDS willingness to ordain young men as elders reflects a particular understanding of how the church functions—one in which institutional authority, properly transmitted through priesthood channels, carries divine sanction regardless of the holder’s personal spiritual development. The church, in this model, is fundamentally an authoritative institution dispensing salvific ordinances.
Consider an analogy: imagine a vocational school that grants ASE Certification—the industry-recognized credential for automotive service excellence—to students on their first day of class. Before they’ve ever diagnosed an engine misfire, replaced a timing belt, or puzzled through an electrical gremlin, they receive the same certification as a master technician with thirty years of experience. The credential is technically valid; the paperwork is in order; the institution has followed its procedures. But would you trust that newly certified “technician” with your transmission rebuild?
The absurdity is obvious because we intuitively understand that genuine mechanical competence cannot be conferred—it must be developed through years of training, practice, and hard-won experience. Credentials that outpace competence aren’t just meaningless; they’re potentially dangerous.
The biblical model operates on this same intuition applied to spiritual leadership. Authority emerges organically from demonstrated Christ-like character. The community recognizes what God has already done in forming a leader; it does not create leadership through institutional conferral. Ordination, properly understood, is the church’s public acknowledgment of spiritual maturity that already exists—not a mechanism for producing it.
These represent genuinely different visions of what the church is and how spiritual authority functions within it.
What Purpose Does the Mission Actually Serve?
Sociological research offers an additional lens. Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s foundational work on commitment mechanisms in high-demand groups (Commitment and Community, 1972) identifies practices that build organizational loyalty: sacrifice, investment, renunciation, communion, mortification, and transcendence. The two-year mission, with its separation from family, distinctive dress, rigorous schedule, and intensive community, touches each of these mechanisms.
This observation is not meant cynically. Sociological functions do not negate spiritual ones; many effective religious practices serve both human developmental purposes and divine ones. Yet it invites the question: is the primary purpose of missionary service to convert others, or to solidify the commitment of the missionaries themselves? Former LDS members frequently report that the mission served as a powerful “commitment escalation” that made later departure psychologically costly.
The timing is significant here. Eighteen is precisely the age when young people naturally individuate from parents, question inherited beliefs, and establish independent identities. Immersing young people in an intensive religious experience at this developmental stage—before the questioning typically begins—may serve to cement identity before alternatives are seriously considered.
Evaluating the Arguments: A Question of Logic
Several logical considerations merit attention. The LDS position commits what philosophers call a definitional equivocation—using a term in two fundamentally different senses while trading on the authority or meaning of the original sense. In simpler terms, it’s a bait-and-switch with vocabulary: the word stays the same, but the substance underneath it changes entirely.
When Latter-day Saints speak of “elders,” they mean something categorically different from what Paul meant, what the early church meant, and what Christians throughout history have meant. The biblical elder is a spiritually mature man whose character has been tested and proven over time. The LDS elder is a young man who has received proper ordination within the priesthood hierarchy. These share a label but describe fundamentally different realities—like using the word “bank” to describe both a financial institution and a riverbed, then arguing that your checking account should give you fishing rights.
Using identical terminology for different concepts can create an appearance of continuity where discontinuity actually exists. A casual observer might assume that because the LDS Church has “elders,” it must be following the New Testament pattern. The shared vocabulary obscures the theological revolution that has occurred beneath it.
Additionally, the appeal to priesthood restoration involves a form of circular reasoning. The LDS claim is: “Our elders have authority because they received priesthood through proper channels going back to Peter, James, and John.” But the evidence for this visitation is Joseph Smith’s testimony alone, and the historical record regarding when and how the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored remains, as even LDS historian Richard Bushman acknowledges, “problematic.” The official church history states that “the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders” at a conference in June 1831—not in 1829 as later accounts suggest.
In James White’s book, “Letters To A Mormon Elder,” he offers some compelling questions:
As you know, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the only true church on earth today. Part of this claim is to be seen in the vital LDS doctrine that they, and they alone, hold the true priesthood authority. Supposedly the Aaronic priesthood was conferred on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829, and then, sometime in June of the same year, Peter, James, and John supposedly appeared and conferred the Melchizedek priesthood upon them. We have seen already, of course, that Joseph did not claim to hold the priesthood until after the founding of the Church in 1830, and that he was more than willing to “edit” previously written revelations to “insert” the concept of the priesthood so that it appeared to have been a part of his original teachings (i .e., Section 27 of the D & C being a prime example). I believe that this is a major issue that anyone who would defend the LDS concept of “priesthood authority” cannot ignore.
When Christians attempt to confront the teachings of the LDS Church, the frequent response of the Mormons is, “What is your authority?” Mormons truly believe that they have a special authority from God as presented by the priesthood. But, the question I must ask is this — does the Bible support these ideas? Does the Bible present a special priesthood authority as the Mormon Church claims?
An Invitation to Reflection
This essay has not aimed to prove anything. Rather, it has sought to raise questions that thoughtful people—including thoughtful Latter-day Saints—might find worth considering. Words matter. History matters. The biblical witness matters. And the question of what qualifies someone for spiritual leadership is not merely academic; it shapes how communities form, how authority functions, and how people develop in faith.
For those within the LDS tradition who have ever wondered about these matters, know that questioning is not betrayal. The God who created human minds presumably intended them to be used. Examining one’s tradition critically, with honesty and intellectual rigor, is not the opposite of faith but may be its highest expression.
For those outside the LDS tradition, these reflections invite both understanding and appropriate humility. The young missionaries knocking on doors represent real people on genuine spiritual journeys, often demonstrating sincere faith and remarkable sacrifice. Disagreement about theology need not produce disrespect for persons.
The question “What makes an elder an elder?” is finally a question about the nature of spiritual authority itself. Is authority something conferred or something cultivated? Is it an office or a character? Does it flow from institution or from transformation? These are questions worth asking—and worth continuing to ask as we seek to understand what faithful following of Christ actually requires.
Sources Consulted
Biblical Sources: 1 Timothy 3:1-713 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.; Titus 1:5-925 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,[a] and his children are believers[b] and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer,[c] as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound[d] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.; Acts 20:17-283Paul Speaks to the Ephesian Elders 17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.[a] 22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by[b] the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[c] which he obtained with his own blood.; 1 Peter 5:1-445 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,[a] not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;[b] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory..
Early Church: Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 AD)
LDS Sources: Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Elder, Melchizedek Priesthood”; Doctrine and Covenants 107; Church Newsroom, “Melchizedek Priesthood”
LDS Scholarship: Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005); Terryl Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Sociological Analysis: Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972)
This article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and relevance, the content reflects AI-generated insights, but it has been carefully edited by this author.