Talk:Melchizedek priesthood (Latter Day Saints)/Archive 1

Disambiguation Rename Needed
This page, as currently named, is a patently unfair promotion of Mormonism over other religions. Note that the Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned in the Biblical books (such as Genesis and Hebrews) which predate Mormon use by several millennia. Shouldn't this be renamed Melchizedek priesthood (Mormonism)? Especially when all other uses are lumped into one article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek_Priesthood_%28Christianity%29

Ryoung122 05:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Could this article be moved out of a subpage and into the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page? -- Zoe


 * You mean wiser? No, there is much more to be said in regards to LDS Priesthood.  In general, many of the points on the main page should be moved to their own subpages as well.  There is much much more to be added to those points too.


 * I have no idea what you mean by "wiser". I didn't say anything about wiser in my comment.  All I said was that it should be moved out.  If not, perhaps moved to [Priesthood of the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints]?  -- Zoe


 * By "wiser" I meant "wiser to be moved". Could it be, yes?  Should it be (that is, is it wiser, better, etc) to be moved? no.  (And you did not at first say "should"...you said "could"...a great difference there.)  No, it shouldn't be moved.  The main page has a long way to go.  There is a lot more to be added to it and its subtopics.  What makes the most sense is to put a line or two about the subtopic (so that the page is not unmanageably long) on the main page with a link to a subpage with a fuller treatment on that subtopic as was done with this subpage.  This model will also facilitate treatment of where this church parallels/contrasts with other (christian) religions on the same topic--a short description with a link from some main page to an LDS subpage for fuller treatment of the subject.  Rather than making more main pages related to the LDS church, it will make more sense to have subpages for the subtopics related to the main page.  I plan on doing extensive work on the main page and its subpages and that is the model I intend to follow.

Have we reached agreement on the use of subpages? Pro or con? -- Zoe


 * Moved. There is no reason to have / titles sine the software doesn't give them any special functions anymore. --mav


 * Bzzzzz. wrong answer, mav. Unless you can point me to a wiki policy re: subpages I'm going with my preferences on any LDS-church related topics and pages.  Who cares if they serve no "special function".  As a model for ordering information, subpages are a superior model.  You didn't even bother fixing links to the page that you moved.... BoNoMoJo 22:35 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * There's no need to fix links when you do a move. They're automatically taken care of.  -- Zoe 01:03 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * You're right. When I double checked it redirects.  Still learning here. BoNoMoJo 04:44 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * Bzzzz. No reason to be combative. Much discussion has taken place about this very subject. Here is just one thread: Get_rid_of_subpages_entirely. Human readable and natural titles are the best. --mav


 * Combative? Who is railroading the change? BoNoMoJo 05:31 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * More. Why I am suspicious of subpages, The case against subpages --mav


 * There is also: Naming conventions (common names). What is common about the / title? --mav


 * Clarify your question please. BoNoMoJo


 * Yet more: Follow the whole thread if you like. --mav


 * Thanks for the links. My earlier searches on this topic were fruitless, but now I've got a good idea of other's arguments pro and con.  I am unconvinced that the elimination of subpages is for the best and I didn't see any policy forbidding this usage.  At this point, I can't really tell who is an authority (especially with Larry's transition) although you two (mav and Ed) are obviously prominent figures.  As it appears, the usage is preferential, I'm sticking with subpages. BoNoMoJo 05:31 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

We don't like slashes around here. call it a reaction to slashdot if you will, but it just works out better not to use them. Besides, Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is such as nifty title! --Ed Poor


 * I don't think it's nifty, nor necessarily a "Human readable and natural title" (whatever that is supposed to mean)...your comment is also patronizing. Aren't we starting off on good foot here? BoNoMoJo 05:31 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * I think a more appropriate title would be "Priesthood (LDS)". If there are no strong objections, I'll move the page later. BoNoMoJo 16:06 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * My only other thought on the format may be to title the subtopics as "Priesthood (LDS/Mormons)" since some folks will not connect LDS and Mormons, but I'm not sure about the usage of / in parens. Guidance here would be helpful.  Thanks. BoNoMoJo


 * You asked about the / page policy. I provided documentation for it. Now please stop moving pages back to / titles. --mav


 * Mav, that's just BS. Your links merely point to threads of arguments for and against and I will follow my preference until you show me a policy decision otherwise. BoNoMoJo 05:54 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * Now it won't let me move them back. Did you have something to do with that or is it some glitch? or? BoNoMoJo


 * I dunno. The page isn't protected. --mav


 * Just look at all the work that has been done moving articles from / pages to "History of...", "Grography of..." ect. Also look at the history for Star Wars, Star Trek and Middle-earth associated articles. They were all in / page format but have since been moved. --mav


 * De facto policy by a bullying group? Congratulations!  Let's make every one conform! Any idea when the software will keep contributors from / pages if ever? BoNoMoJo


 * Much of what we do here is de facto policy that is later codifed. Thus the common name naming convention. / pages are valid for some titles such as GNU/Linux. --mav


 * BTW read Naming conventions (common names). What is common about the / title? --mav


 * You've already linked this once. I've already read it, and you still haven't replied to my request: clarify your question please? BoNoMoJo


 * Mav, you still haven't clarified. So, let me be more precise.  What do you mean by "What is common about the / title?" BoNoMoJo


 * Reply above. If you've read it then you already know about our naming convention on this very topic so please follow it. --mav


 * Mav, there is currently not a single reference to the use of subpaging in the main page of the link, and the talk page merely links to the same threads of argumentation... BoNoMoJo


 * Common and simple names = no artificial / pages. --mav

From : We had a rather lengthy discussion about the subpages, which ended in Larry deciding to get rid of them.


 * Yes, mav, it was one of the first pages I read. It is not determinative of the issue.  It's interesting how you read into or at least present a piece as meaning a particular thing. BoNoMoJo

There has been no change in the policy since. And the title of the thread starts with "No-subpage policy", hence there is a policy. Please follow it. --mav


 * Non-sequitur, friend. The title of the thread is ambiguous to its meaning. Regardless, I've decided to eat Green Eggs and Ham for now.  If after using the current, more common naming convention I just can't seem to get by without subpages, I'll make a stink then. BoNoMoJo 15:34 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

BoNoMoJo, I assure you that subpages have been eliminated. The software doesn't even handle them anymore. Any subpages that you may see around Wikipedia are either relics that haven't been refactored yet, or those created by newcomers who are unaware that they are no longer used. Consider the reasons you want to use a subpage, and then ask yourself: if a topic is big enough for a subpage, why shouldn't it have its own article? -- Stephen Gilbert 12:43 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * Stephen, I've never disagreed that subpages have been eliminated. It appears to a newcomer like me that this convention has been enforced by some dogmatic bullies to become the de facto norm.  At this point I've decided not to fight it.  I've added a paragraph at Naming conventions (common names) to state more straightforwardly that subpages should not be used. BoNoMoJo 15:34 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

It might help if you say why you want subpages. Is it so that all the articles show up together in an alphabetical index? Do you, perhaps, want a way that interested readers can find ALL articles relating to the church?


 * I'm not going to make a case for my preference since I've decided to go with the convention that is being enforced. If it just doesn't work, I'll make my case then. Hey, you guys are very responsive. I like that. BoNoMoJo

Is there an abbreviation or nickname that can be used, such as 'Mormon' or 'LDS'? Then we could entitle articles as follows:
 * Mormon priesthood or priesthood (Mormons)
 * Mormon Temples or Temples (Mormons)
 * Mormon Standard Works or Standard Works (Mormons)

Let's all work together, instead of butting heads. We're not goats: we are reasonable people, working toward a common goal. --Ed Poor


 * I just made my suggestion above on a format without subpages for LDS-church related subtopics....with possibly at least one exception--History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--since the common usage seems to be "History of X". BoNoMoJo 16:06 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

This article is not merely about the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is about the Priesthood of which the Melchizedek Priesthood (among other things) is part of the subject matter. This article was originally titled Priesthood (Mormonism) and was erroneously moved to its current place. It needs to be moved back and this article name redirected to it. The "resurrecting" of the Priesthood (Mormonism) with less material that is duplicated here is a mistake. If Priesthood (Mormonism) is not a good enough term and should be substituted with something like "Priesthood (LDS Church)" or "Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", then that needs to be hashed out in Naming conventions (Mormonism) so that a consensus may be reached on the convention. B 05:54, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
 * I would support your moving this article. But please don't redirect this to that. The Melchizedek priesthood is a concept in other churches than the LDS, just not a major issue. They deserve some coverage also. Rmhermen 02:30, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding us about or pointing out the redirect issue, Rmhermen. B 04:45, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. BoNoMoJo - wanna move it back to its proper place?Visorstuff 18:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I do, but I'm reluctant to do it because I'm not sure whether it would be better to style it Priesthood (LDS Church) or Priesthood (Mormonism) or maybe even Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do you have any opinion about the Naming conventions (Mormonism) to add at its talk page? B 19:08, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Until the convention is broadly agreed upon, it could be moved back for now to where it was before at Priesthood (Mormonism) which is better than it's current place. B 19:11, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think that this has to be Priesthood (LDS Church), not Priesthood (Mormonism). It goes against the conventions, though. How about Latter-day Saint Priesthood? Let's give it a few days before moving to see if there are any other thoughts.... Visorstuff 00:29, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you said so, Visorstuff. I got word today by email from the Church's media folks that LDS and LDS Church are not a problem for it as a second reference. B 03:15, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * 80xtals and I talked at some length about the convention. She thinks that the Church related articles should fully state the name of the Church...If we presume that wikipedia will eventually include articles on all significant Mormon splinter groups, she is probably right. Brevity is a good goal, but without using the full name, accuracy is not being given its due if Mormonism, LDS or LDS Church is used in article titles that almost excusively include info on the Church. What do you think of "Priesthood (Latter-day Saints)"? and for other articles "Latter-day Saints and Christianity" and "Endowment (Latter-day Saints)", etc.? B 05:06, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * I may have a temporary solution. I put some of the material from this page back into Priesthood (Mormonism), and separated out the generic Mormonism material from that specific for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Later, if we come up with a convention for church-specific articles such as "Priesthood (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite))", or "Priesthood (whatever)", we can move that material from Priesthood (Mormonism) to there, if there is enough to justify its own article.  Take a look at Priesthood (Mormonism), and let me know what you think.COGDEN 09:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For a page about Melchizedek Priesthood, this article does not discuss Jewish/Hebrew belief in the priesthood nor Catholic belief in the priesthoods, and frankly is too POV in a Mormon way. The creators/contributors (myself included) need to provide more context about the Melchizedek priesthood from a Non-Mormon POV. There are others out there who also claim this authority (and/or Aaronic Priesthood) of have doctrinal beliefs concerning it. How the article stands is a disservice to the topic, and needs to be revised. May want to check out the following links for more Catholic-specific beliefs as a starting point:
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10156b.htm
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01003a.htm
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14413a.htm
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03761b.htm
 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm

We need to nail out Naming conventions, because as this article stands it needs Latter-day Saint added to the title or needs to be overhauled. Visorstuff 14:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Adding "(Latter-day Saint)" in parens to the title is a decent start, though it's inconsistent with "Priesthood (Mormonism)". Any chance of picking one or the other as a qualifier in similar article titles? Second question: if someone were to add material about Catholic or Anglican views of the Melchizedek Priesthood, would those become separate pages with (Catholic) and (Anglican) qualifiers in the title, making "Melchizedek Priesthood" a disambiguation page? Or should they go in the main page lumped together until there's enough material to make it worth splitting them off? One reason to lump them together to begin with is they may have a lot of overlap. For that matter there will be some overlap with this article too. Further thoughts? Wesley 06:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that the general article Melchizedek Priesthood should include Catholic, Anglican, and other views, as well as generic and historic Mormonism views. But I think that the extremely sect-specific views in the present form of Melchizedek Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) should be kept in its own page. Once Melchizedek Priesthood is written, some of the reduncant material can be removed from this page. COGDEN 16:09, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Priesthood (Mormonism) now seems to cover all this material: indeed, it's (almost?) exactly the same text. Can this page now be turned into a redirect? (After any further merging necessary's done.) Alai 18:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Branches of branches.
I'm not knowledgeable to authoratively say it's incorrect, but the "Priesthood Branches" is somewhat poorly worded. The rest of the article is structured on the basis that there are two branches of "LdS Priesthood" (A. Priesthood and M. Priesthood), but there's one clause that runs, "that is, the Aaronic Priesthood is a branch of the Melchizedek Priesthood". I'd be inclined to just snip this, as the lesser/preparatory nature of the Aaronic office is ably described, and this seems to me to add nothing (except some hierarchical confusion), but I may be missing some nuance.

acecabezon's edits
Knowing more about the subject than the protocols of wikipedia, I'll post my concerns here (and allow the moderators to make adjustments as appropriate).

1. "The Melchizedek priesthood is one of the two or three types, or "orders" of priesthood."

From D&C 107:1: "There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely the Melchizedek and Aaronic". Thus, there are two, not "three", and they are not "types", they are "priesthoods".

2. The term "Melchizedek" is used in place of the true name:  "But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood." (D&C 107:4)

3. The LDS church is *not* a denomination of mormonism, see http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4043-1---15-168,00.html

4. For a man to be ordained to the priesthood, he must not only meet the age, gender, and worthiness requirements, but also be willing to covenant to be faithful, magnify his calling, and live by the word of God. Men are called of God to the priesthood, as was Aaron. (Heb 5:4) However they are not required to pass any specific aptitude or IQ test to be called to serve.

5. Brethren are not called to be High Priests for age reasons alone. They are called to that office when they are called into a stake presidency, high council, bishopric, or otherwise at the determination of the stake president.

This information comes from the scriptures and is in accordance with Book 2 of the Church Handbook of Instructions. -- acecabezon (april 2006)

Let me take each of these point by point.

1 - Is there two or three types of priesthood? Answer: "Two or three" is correct. Within the church there are two divisions. There is a difference in the wording. Latter-day Saints believe that Women do hold the patriarchal priesthod with their husbands if they have been sealed in the temple. It is generally considered an extension or fullness of the Melchizedek order, but Smith taught it as a seperate priesthood (probably because women could hold it, and thus officiate in temple ordinances, etc.)

From Teachings of the Prophet Josesph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith Section Six 1843-44, p.323:
 * The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right from the eternal God, and not by descent from father and mother; and that priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.


 * The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood.


 * The 3rd is what is called the Levitical Priesthood, consisting of priests to administer in outward ordinances, made without an oath; but the Priesthood of Melchizedek is by an oath and covenant.

2 - Maybe I missed your edit here? please clarify, as the article states this?

3- Is the LDS church is a denomination of mormonism? No. You are correct. It is a denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement. Mormonism is the history and culture of some denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement.

4- A man does not need to covenant to hold the Aaronic priesthood, but does for the Melchizedek or Patriarchal priesthoods. Typically, all Mormons believe that "a man must be called of God by prophesy." In addition to that prophesy (which according to a revelation to John Taylor should happen at certain ages) they must meet other minimum requirements - as deemed by church policy. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

5 High Priests should not ever be called just because of age. You are correct in stating that "They are called to that office when they are called into a stake presidency, high council, bishopric, or otherwise at the determination of the stake president."

Good clarifications on points 2, 4 and 5. 1 and 3 I'll likely change back. -Visorstuff 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, my responses:

1. My only concern here is that TotPJS is not canonized scripture. How God decides to divide his power in any particular dispensation is not up to me to decide, but from the scriptures and other manuals, it looks like there are only two priesthoods now. At the very least, it should not say "two or three", that's like saying "I have two or three hands." Only one can be right. Note, I have never heard that women hold the priesthood through their husbands, do you have a source?

2. I think this comment no longer applies -- previously the text implied that the name of the priesthood was only Melchizedek.

3. I'll probably take issue personally with any attempts to classify the LDS church with other sects -- but I'll forbear.

4. I was trying to improve the wording that seemed to imply that priesthood was just thrown around indiscriminately. -- acecabezon (april 2006)


 * In at least some denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, particularly fundamentalist groups, there are, indeed, three orders of priesthood. See Priesthood (Mormonism). CO GDEN  17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article: disambiguation problem with Melchizedek Priesthood (Christianity)
We have a disambiguation problem, since this article was renamed without the (Mormonism) parenthetical. There is a Melchizedek Priesthood (Christianity) article, which refers to the Latter Day Saint version of the priesthood. This more general article used to be named Melchizedek Priesthood, and somebody apparently added the (Christianity) parenthetical. I think it's Wikipedia naming policy that the more general article omits the parenthetical, while the specialized article includes the parenthetical, or a more specific parenthetical. We might need to change back. CO GDEN  00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. We need this page to be named Melchizedek Priesthood (Mormonism) or (Latter-day Saints). Then the Melchizedek Priesthood (Christianity) page should be given a non-parenthetical name. Links to this page would then be provided on the main page. Are there any objections? Wrad 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordination by Peter, James, and John
The current wording with respect to an ordination of Smith and/or others by P,J,J compared to that received from John for the Aaronic priesthood implies that LDS maintain such a belief based on nothing more than a single vague reference but that is a unfair analysis of the relevant sources. For instance, the wording of D&C 27:12 which would be considered as valid a revelation by mainstream LDS as that given from 128:21 predates the existing citation by 12 years and explicitly states that Smith was ordained by them at some point prior to that time (1830). I imagine citing that counts as original research so I'll just leave this for someone with more time to find a secondary source but here is the more relevant quote:

27:12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them; 67.199.182.112 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My thought
My thought -- the page erroneously says the president of the church must be an apostle, but that isn't true -- he must be a high priest. And secondly, in the listing of quorums, the quorum of the first presidency is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.198.120 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of date
Elders Qurorum and High Priests' Quorum were merged in early 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.18.229 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have updated the table to reflect this fact. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The actually isn't correct. Yes, the makeup of the quorums changed in April 2018, but they weren't fully "merged" as the good faith statement implies.... as noted previously in the table, the high priest quorum in each stake now consists of those in specific callings, while others not serving in those callings, even though previously ordained as high priests, participate as part of the elders quorum. I reinserted it in the table. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Area Presidencies
I'm a little confused. Based on your edit summary for this, it seems you are saying that my edit was wrong because Area Seventy can be Area Presidents. However, the edit re-added that Apostles can be Area Presidents. So there are two questions/comments I have: --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Can Apostles be Area Presidents? I thought Area Presidencies were created to off-load the related responsibilities from the Apostles to the Seventies. So while the role and responsibilities might have been fulfilled in the past by Apostles, I didn't think that an Apostle had ever concurrently served in an Are Presidency.
 * 2) I made the statement that the Area President must be a General Authority Seventy based on the Area Presidencies description from the Church website. I haven't had a chance to compare the chart of Area Presidencies to the list of General Authority Seventy yet. Which Area President is currently an Area Seventy? Nevermind, I just found the most recent Area Presidency chart (as opposed to this somewhat out-dated chart) and see the Europe East Area Presidency is an exception to the rule.
 * Hi, FyzixFighter. Sorry for the confusion. I was primarily focused on the aspect of only general authority seventy being area presidents, which you found in the current circumstance.  Over the past 20 years or so, it was more common than it is now for an area seventy to be the president.  To the question about apostles....in practice, this could probably be removed.  As you know, three who were members of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time, served as area presidents, but again over the last approximately 20 years (early 2000s), but not recent.  This included L. Tom Perry, Dallin H. Oaks, and Jeffrey R. Holland.  As you noted, given the responsibilities of the apostles, it's probably quite unlikely to happen again. I have removed that piece and just included a ref note there. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)