Talk:Priesthood (LDS Church)

message: 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)
replies: text: The merge you describe makes sense. -- 159.182.1.4 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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)
thread_title: Confusion - 2 articles on same topic?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional Leadership Offices 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Partially(?) via work-around of (Diff) a blue link under the section header directing readers to High Priests parent article--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in elders quorum and high priests group 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Cowdery and Bushman edits