Most of the Mormon missionaries I've encountered are young men doing a couple year stint. They are typically identified as "elders", but my understanding is that this designation is only temporary during their time of service. How is the LDS use of this term similar or different than the office of elder in mainstream Protestant circles? Does their designation as elders give them any ruling authority over the church body or is their role strictly to work with non members?

In researching my answer for [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35389/does-catholicism-confound-the-role-of-elder-and-priest) I started to think about the doctrine that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles as being a bit unfair to the other folks. For instance, if St. James who wrote the epistle wasn't the brother of John or Jude, but actually a third James or a fourth James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, would his Episcopacy necessarily have been conferred on him by the Apostles or just by virtue of who he was. Or were the elders the first successors of the 12 apostles regardless of their functions as presbyters?

I am somewhat interested in joining the Roman Catholic Church, but there are some things that I've had to further investigate, one of which is the role of "elder" and "priest" in the Roman Catholic Church. ***Priest*** Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "priest." - In the Old Testament, כֹהֵן = ἱερεὺς = "priest" (Masoretic = LXX = KJV) - In the New Testament, ἱερεὺς = "priest." For example: Gen. 14:18 in the OT, and Matt. 8:4 in the NT. In summary, ἱερεὺς is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is translated consistently into English as "priest." ***Elder*** Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "elder." - In the Old Testament, זָקֵן = πρεσβύτερος = “elder.” (Masoretic = LXX = KJV) - In the New Testament, πρεσβύτερος = “elder.” For example: Num. 11:25 in the OT, and Acts 11:30 in the NT. In summary, πρεσβύτερος is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is generally translated into English as "elder" and seldomly "presbyter," but never as "priest." The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the English word "priest " states, >The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the **priest** (**presbyter**), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank ("secundi sacerdotes" Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions. Notice how it equates "priest" and "presbyter." ("Presbyter" is simply a loan-word derived from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος. Loan words are essentially loose transliterations, but not translations. The translation of πρεσβύτερος would be "elder.") I understand "priest" is etymologically derived from πρεσβύτερος, but πρεσβύτερος is consistently translated into English as "elder," not "priest." We consistently see the Greek word ἱερεὺς translated into English as "priest" instead. **So the question:** where in the OT or NT did the "elder" - which is the actual meaning of πρεσβύτερος - function also as a "priest" (ἱερεὺς), that is, one who was mainly tasked with offering sacrifices in a Temple? Why does the Roman Catholic Church equate the two terms?

In the LDS Church, some offices in the Priesthood have minimum age requirements: - A deacon must be at least 12 years old - A teacher must be at least 14 years old - A priest must be at least 16 years old - An elder must be at least 18 years old I am wondering, what is the history of these age requirements?

The problem as I understand it is a combining of roles.. not confounding or mixing but fusing the roles into something different. The role of the priest doesn't seem to match the role of the Presbyter. But if they are the same, then why the difference.

I read from this link : > A. Some people believe these twenty-four elders represent Israel,
> **but at the time of this vision**, Israel as a whole nation had not yet been redeemed. > > B. The elders cannot represent tribulation saints for the same reason >
not all had yet been converted **at the time of John’s vision**. > > C. The most likely option is that the elders represent the raptured > Church which sings songs of redemption (Revelation 5:8-10). What made me confuse is because on point-C, I can also say :
**but at the time of John’s vision**, there is no raptured Church yet. So, the question is :
Did Calvinist say (in point-C) that **at the time of John’s vision** there is already raptured Church? On the other hand,
If what Calvinist meant (in point-C) is at the time of the "End Time",
Then why the argument in point-A and point-B use **at the time of John’s vision** ?

Jehovah's Witnesses are known to have no pastors or priests, because having pastors or priests would go against their theology. Instead, they have "elders". From an outsider's perspective, elders appear to function in the same way as the priests or pastors from other Christian denominations, namely because these elders do not include women. Women, however, are allowed and encouraged to become ministers and preach the gospel door to door. What are the requirements for a person to become an elder? What type of training do elders have? And have elders ever been formally trained in Christian history, biblical studies, or theology? A related question: are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to read a mainstream, scholarly bible?

I'm a member of an Evangelical Free church and one of the members of my Sunday school class made an impassioned plea for us to nominate several women to be elders. Currently our church has no women elders and never has as far as I know. I also am certain that the denomination does not allow women in pastoral or board of directors positions. But the only statement I can find is from [Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)](http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/our-mission-and-history): > **Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA)** www.ecfa.org > Women may not serve as pastors, elders, or deacons. Men who are not ordained and women who would like to be involved in ministry may be granted the "Christian Ministry License." > —"US Denominations and Their Stances on Women in Leadership" \[[PDF](http://www2.cbeinternational.org/new/E-Journal/2007/07spring/denominations%20first%20installment--FINAL.pdf)\] The trouble with this is that I our church _does_ have women deacons. I'd like to know what the official policy is and what arguments are made for the denomination's position.

Inspired by this other question which asks about how there are quite a few priests in the Mormon church. In my case most (if not all) of the Mormons that I have met all had a lapel that identified them as an "elder" (which, according to this Wikipedia article seems to be a different position than "priest"). Also this other question seems to indicate that an LDS ward (congregation) can also have quite a few elders. 1. Is "elder" a separate official position from "priest" and if so, how are they different? 2. Are these two positions mutually exclusive or can a person be officially both?

I am referring to 'Elders' in the sense of 1 Timothy 5:17 (NIV) : > 17 The **elders who direct the affairs of the church** well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. As opposed to 'Respect your Elders'. Is there an age-requirement?

Just had an enlightening chat with a preacher of a faith I'm not familiar with. When I congratulated him on his new pastorship, he corrected me saying that he wasn't a pastor, and among other things he believed he needed to have faithful children before he could become a pastor or elder. He indicated that there was scriptural basis for this, but I don't recall which scripture he used, other than the New Testament in the KJV bible. **What scriptures support the idea that faithful children are needed prior to attaining a certain office or title?**

In the church government and polity documents (as well as the myriad of meta discussion on the internet) for various Protestant traditions it is common to find either the term "Elder led" or "Elder ruled". What is the difference between these two terms?