Talk:Priesthood (LDS Church)

Merge proposal
Proposed merge: add info from Unrighteous dominion into this article.

Does there really need to be an article on "unrighteous dominion"? Seeing as how it is a teaching that instructs how the priesthood should not be used, it seems it could easily be inserted into this article under a heading near the end. –SESmith 09:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The merge you describe makes sense. -- 159.182.1.4 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion - 2 articles on same topic?
I'm actually trying to figure out how this topic is different from Priesthood (Latter Day Saints). (I am not LDS, just ran across both topics while doing some research on a related topic) I'm wondering if this article and that one can be merged and a redirect created. Of course, I could very well be wrong - please let me know if I am! Lcarscad 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears this article is designed to be specific to the Latter-Day Saints (note the hyphen) which is the largest church with "Mormon" roots (SLC, UT based). This is in contrast to other "Latter day saint movements" to include the community of Christ church and other smaller break offs of the faith first established at the time of Joseph Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantherjad (talk • contribs)

Additional Leadership Offices
I notice that there is no mention of either a deacon's quorum or teacher's quorum president. These are both leadership offices in the Priesthood. Both presidents hold keys. In particular, the deacon's quorum president must hold at least the keys of the ministering of angels, and the teacher's quorum president must hold at least the keys of preaching the gospel/exhorting the saints.

My reasoning for these claims is simple. (1) "Aaronic Priesthood quorum presidents are given the keys to administer the work of the quorums over which they preside." (2) According to the current table, deacons have the keys of the ministering of angels (which is correct, but I don't recall the scripture reference to support it), and from D&C 107, teachers are responsible to exhort the saints/preach the gospel. ==> Therefore, the presidents of these quorums must hold those keys. NOTE: it is impossible that every deacon holds the KEYS of the ministering of angels. Rather, it must be that the President of the Quorum holds that key and turns it in behalf of his fellow quorum members.

While this might seem a small matter to some, think about the impact this information might have on deacons, teachers, etc. How many 12-16 year olds understand the sheer extent of their priesthood? I believe that much of this underestimation is a result of not knowing/not being taught what power and authority they actually hold.

I don't know how to edit the cool tables, and don't want to step on any toes. N.B.Callor (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Presiding Bishop
I have to admit I don't really know where the Presiding Bishop falls in the "Hierarchy of leadership", but should he be somewhere? The Presiding Bishop is a LDS priesthood calling with church-wide authority, isn't he?--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would think the Presiding Bishopric (the PB and his counselors) should be in there somewhere. Technically, they are the presidency of the Aaronic Priesthood for the entire church, with their main responsibility being temporal affairs (property, financial issues, etc.). In the chart, I would have them placed between the Quorum of the Twelve and the Seventy, only because the Seventy are divided between general and local authorities in the chart and we don't want to stick something in the midst of the Seventies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to [mormonnewsroom Presiding Bishopric,] the Presiding Bishop reports directly to the First Presidency, so I'm not sure that putting them "in the midst of the Seventies" would even be appropriate. I admit, I have no idea how to handle this, I just think that the Presiding Bishop should be somewhere as it is a "Priesthood" leadership callings, unlike other General offices, (like the General President of the primary for example).  Perhaps this need to be turned into a "chart" instead.--- [[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] (talk)
 * Sounds good to me. I would put them right under the Twelve. That said, you might be right that this pyramid structure is a bit unusual. It doesn't necessarily have to stay. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the pyramid is retained, maybe there is a way to "split" the box with the Seventy on a side and the Bishopric on another, under the Twelve - perhaps similar to how the mission or temple presidencies are shown? ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea—it would avoid any suggestion that the Seventy report to the Presiding Bishopric. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Great idea, ChristensenMJ! I third this recommendation. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are you referring to ChristensenMJ. If Good Ol’factory and Jgstokes also like it, I probably will to, but I'm lost and don't know where your referring to.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yep, sorry! I should have been more clear.  Lower in the same table setup, where local authorities are identified and a hierarchy is provided, note how the temple and mission presidencies are on the right hand side of the block and the table is set up such that they cover several of the other parts of the organization.  Hope that helps some, but looking at it may be the best help. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that this is a huge issue, but it does make me wonder if this pyramid hierarchy "chart" needs to be retained at all. Being structured in this way, it could be interpreted as meaning that those in the pyramid report to the ones directly above them and supervise those directly below them. This holds pretty well (more or less?) in the table right now, and it is helpful in that sense. However, adding the Presiding Bishopric as we've discussed will kind of mess this up. They report to the First Presidency (not the Twelve), and who if anyone do they supervise? They don't really supervise the local bishoprics, even though on paper they are the ex officio presiding leaders of these bodies. Do they supervise the work of the Young Men general presidency at all other than in a pro forma kind of way? I kind of doubt it, but perhaps knows with his background? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a little tricky to try and find a good way to express the structure. Trying to include them on "equal" footing with the Twelve in reporting to the First Presidency would also be problematic to imply they are considered equal to that group.  It's true that ecclesiastically, the Bishopric doesn't really have practical stewardship for any group or body.  As noted by the "doubt it" expressed by Good Ol’factory, along with the other general auxiliary organizations, the YM general presidency functions as part of the church's Priesthood Department - which has its own executive director(s), similar to those we "hear" more about, such as the Temple Department.  "Business-structure wise" - the direct reports of the Bishopric include the managing directors of various church departments that fall under their "temporal affairs" umbrella of stewardship. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes in elders quorum and high priests group
The article has been updated to reflect the new elders quorum and discontinuance of the high priest group. So, while the article is now current, all historical information has been removed. I'm thinking a section on, or at least a reference to, the pre-2018 structure would be appropriate. Thoughts? Bahooka (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just finished trying to work on the brief Priesthood Executive Committee article, which had been changed for current changes.  I had similar thoughts - trying to provide the current info, while retaining the historical. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Partially✅(?) via work-around of (Diff) a blue link under the section header directing readers to High Priests parent article--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Women
So nothing for women? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent Cowdery and Bushman edits
First, I added the 1849 Cowdery quote because the anon editor had recently added in several other Cowdery quotes implying a contradiction in the accounts. Imo, the editor was cherrypicking these quotes to put forth an original synthesis. BH Roberts suggests that 1849 direct quote resolves the apparent discrepancy and is more reliable than the 1848 second-hand account of Cowdery's word. So if Cowdery isn't reliable for these events, then we really should remove all the extra Cowdery quotes that the anon editor added in. Secondly, with respect to Bushman, this is OR and SYNTH. The edit in question extrapolates (SYNTH) from a single quote from Bushman to "some scholars". Also, this is not an argument that Bushman is making when you actually look at the paragraph in question. Bushman is listing several hypotheticals for why the differences and separation in time between Cowdery's and Smith's accounts. Bushman also suggests other reasons, so why not mention those? Why cherrypick this one quote. If anything, Bushman assertion is found at the end of that paragraph - that it was "more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement" so I argue that this is a misrepresentation of Bushman's statement. Given this, I am reverting to the prior version before the anon editor's recent edit. -FyzixFighter (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely not cherry picking Bushman. Bushman is keenly aware that every single historian that is not a Latter-day Saint and many who are do not agree with the Cowdery narrative, and Bushman had to address it. This article gives a good overview of the controversy. The Cowdery narrative presented here in this article is NOT the mainstream opinion. Cowdery was controversial when he stated it in 1834, and controversial today. Dan Vogel, Gregory Prince, D. Michael Quinn, G. St. John Scott, A. Bruce Lindgren, etc. have all published scholarly articles about this. This is not OR or SYNTH. Epachamo (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)