Talk:Melchizedek priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

message: An example of this is with the First Presidency: counselors may be from other quorums but we still show both separately and just assume that crossovers can occur. This is why I think area presidencies should be specified just like any other rank. Wanting to emphasize that "area" presidencies can be "general" authorities is not more an excuse. Let me know any thoughts... Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the thoughts.  I think you have misread what I am saying - it's not that it should be omitted, nor is there an associated excuse involved. As the edit summary noted, perhaps area presidencies should be moved up into the general authorities space, since that is who is primarily serving there, rather than being associated with area seventies.  The almost overwhelming norm of having general authority seventy be the area presidency roles would make it natural to include it there...they actually aren't really "local" leaders anyway, so it would seem natural to include it higher on the hierarchy table.  Additionally, I am not sure the intent of the parallel, but the First Presidency is not an equivalent example. There is no quorum crossover...even if the "theoretical" idea is that one only need be a high priest to serve as a counselor and it "could" cross over, that's just not reality or practical.  Even in some of the historical exceptions, such as J. Reuben Clark, even though he was called directly into the First Presidency, he was still then ordained an apostle. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok but wouldn't it be simple and consistent to just have those titles there too like everywhere else? Either way they have to go somewhere, or it is misleading. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes they are not general authorities. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean by keeping it simple and consistent in just having the titles there - where is "there"?  Is it with the area seventies?  That's not a good place.  Yes, sometimes they are not general authorities, but that is the rare exception....I wonder if we are just talking past each other and saying similar things, or what the circumstance is here....it continues to seem you feel I am not in favor of including the information, which is not the case. ChristensenMJ (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the area presidencies are made of general authorities so they can be considered in the above section. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the language is unfortunately a bit awkward given the current limitations of the chart. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy summary chart should not omit information just because crossovers exist between ranks 

message: I would like to remove stake high councils from the page because all of the others have quorums. The previous discussion included items of this interest, but they were milded by the other discussion(s). If there are arguments against this change, please place them in this section. Thank you, Altanner1991 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jgstokes Do you have references as to what leadership positions are formally sustained by a vote? This would be the only means, as of now, of supporting the inclusion of high councilors on the page. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Altanner1991, there is a difference. There are several key scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants setting forth the importance of a high council at both the general level (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and at the stake level. While one could argue with validity that there is no scriptural basis for area presidencies, and that, as a subset duty of General Authority Seventies (or in some cases Area Seventies), area presidencies canot be included in the hierarchical structure, that is not true of stake high councils, for which there are several scriptural mentions and precedents.https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/high-council?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/high-council?lang=eng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID=311587B8115DB347-75EE0F1C15EF16A2|MCORGID=66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS=1662270935 One could also argue the point that, as Bruce R. McConkie phrased it, "The practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture." https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/relationship-lord/ Above and beyond that, I thought that I remembered seeing a chart of the Church hierarchy somewhere. While I wasn't able to find that, a source independent of the Church provided a similar chart a decade ago. Although the source in question refers to the Church as "the Mormon Church", the hierarcical structure chart featured in the article does appear to be a somewhat accurate interpreation of what is considered as part of the Church hierarchy, which includes high councils: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/11/lds_leadership_chart_how_the_mormon_hierarchy_is_organized.html Of course, even if that is not enough to convince you, it is technically against o established Wikipedia policy for any individual editor to revert changes to which another editor has objected until the outcome of that objection is determined by consensuw (which requires agreement by a majorityi of participants). Sine we have been the only two weighing in here, until more users weigh in, the hierarchy list should remain as it was when I first challenged your edit. That is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Jgstokes (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course; the high council is still on the page (no reverts).The fact that high councils are mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants is a good argument, however further examples might be given whereby roles are in the scriptures and yet are clearly not valid for being the article. We must maintain a strict approach to defining "leadership calling", "calling", and "office". The high council is at the level of Young Men's leadership, or Area Presidencies.I should note also that this article is only for the hierarchy of the Melchizedek priesthood, and not the church as a whole as in the Slate article. I did leave a message on your talk page about how it would be good to have a page on overall church callings, and this could obviously include the hierarchy as a whole, per your source(s). Altanner1991 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

text: The church's website about priesthood keys lists every item on our wiki chart except for high councilors. Therefore, high councilors are indeed supposed to be removed. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that this is significantly hampered by the reorganization of subheadings that was done a couple of months ago. The problem, in my view, is that Church administrative hierarchy only overlaps with Melchizedek priesthood quorums only at the highest levels, that is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Yes the Church is governed and directed by those with priesthood keys, and leadership callings in the Church that themselves don't have keys but operate under the authority of those with keys, eg stake high councils, but there isn't a 1:1 corresponds with priesthood quorums. I think that the subheading "Hierarchy" should be replaced with "Offices", which would include the table and any special cases/histories (I'm thinking summarizing the changing usage of the Seventy office (my dad was a stake seventy back in the day, but then just a high priest when they discontinued the office at the stake level)); "Quorums and quorum organization", which would cover the existing quorum grouping and special cases like no quorum currently for the office of patriarch and also an explanation of quorum presidencies; and "Other leadership callings", which would include a discussion of leadership callings that require certain offices in the priesthood or that pull from specific quorums. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage you to make the edits to the page, that way things could be discussed more easily. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced inclusions in the hierarchy section 

message: Only when I search books to I find Doctrine & Covenants. But there are a lot of sources with a name like that. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the average person, D&C means [[Dilation and curettage]]